Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

> But at the risk of dating myself

John was a *very* precocious 8 year old.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:22 AM, John Baughman via 4D_Tech <
4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:

> Hey Chuck your right of course. But at the risk of dating myself, when
> I first came to Hawaii in 1969 for my first tour in the Navy I was given a
> choice, fly or boat. A first class booking on the SS Lurline sure was
> tempting, but this sailor got sea sick far too easily so I opted to fly.
>
> John
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
> John Baughman
> Kailua,Hawaii
> john...@hawaii.rr.com
>
> > On Oct 15, 2017, at 6:32 AM, Chuck Miller via 4D_Tech <
> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> >
> > I assume he flew
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Chuck
> > 
> 
> > Chuck Miller Voice: (617) 739-0306
> > Informed Solutions, Inc. Fax: (617) 232-1064
> > mailto:cjmillerinformed-solutions.com
> > Brookline, MA 02446 USA Registered 4D Developer
> >   Providers of 4D and Sybase connectivity
> >  http://www.informed-solutions.com
> > 
> 
> > This message and any attached documents contain information which may be
> confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under
> applicable law.  These materials are intended only for the use of the
> intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> transmission, you are hereby notified that any distribution, disclosure,
> printing, copying, storage, modification or the taking of any action in
> reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited.  Delivery of this
> message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not
> compromise or waive such confidentiality, privilege or exemption from
> disclosure as to this communication.
> >
> >> On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:09 PM, Alan Tilson via 4D_Tech <
> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey John,
> >> How did you end up in Hawaii?
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:02 PM, John Baughman via 4D_Tech <
> >> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am going to chime in here with a recent real world experience.
> >>>
> >>> A while back I posted to the NUG a problem that I was having with
> external
> >>> data storage using custom mode. When the data was updated and properly
> >>> saved to the external data folder, the field continued to display the
> old
> >>> version of the data until the server or standalone 4D was restarted.
> This
> >>> was a show stopper for me upgrading a client to v16.
> >>>
> >>> I called tech support and after uploading a sample db demonstrating the
> >>> problem was told that it was in fact a bug and a bug case was opened
> for
> >>> it. This bug existed in 16.1 and R4 beta.
> >>>
> >>> I then called Tracy, my sales rep, and asked her to expedite the bug.
> >>>
> >>> A couple of weeks ago I received a message from 4D TS saying the bug
> was
> >>> fixed in the latest nightly build of 16.1. I confirmed the fix, but
> noted
> >>> that it was still broken in R4 beta. TS acknowledged this and said
> that the
> >>> fix would not show up in the R releases until R5.
> >>>
> >>> 16.2 was released and as expected no bug.
> >>>
> >>> Today R4 was released and voila the bug has been fixed.
> >>>
> >>> Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly? It
> does
> >>> say to me that 4D does heavily prioritize the bugs in their bug list.
> For
> >>> example, you might have noticed that in 16.2 the issue with the Design
> >>> Environment not remembering the open windows from the last session has
> been
> >>> fixed. Not so in R4. Interesting, yes?
> >>>
> >>> For me personally, I am not one to complain. I may be naive, but I
> trust
> >>> that the folks working on 4D are doing the best they can. Sure there
> could
> >>> be improvements, but I am one to live with what I got and be patient
> for
> >>> what is yet to come.
> >>>
> >>> I understand the frustrations, but that is my 2 cents worth.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <
> >>> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> 
> > If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with
> >>> Tech
>  Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.
> 
>  I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than
> >>> me.
>  It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
>  database, etc.
> 
>  It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is
> NOT
>  OUR FAULT. It is their fault.
> 
>  I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't
> being
>  fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also
> >>> appreciate
>  that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
>  again down the years on this list.
> 
>  

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John Baughman via 4D_Tech]

Hey Chuck your right of course. But at the risk of dating myself, when I 
first came to Hawaii in 1969 for my first tour in the Navy I was given a 
choice, fly or boat. A first class booking on the SS Lurline sure was tempting, 
but this sailor got sea sick far too easily so I opted to fly. 

John


Sent from my iPad
John Baughman
Kailua,Hawaii
john...@hawaii.rr.com

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 6:32 AM, Chuck Miller via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I assume he flew
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chuck
> 
> Chuck Miller Voice: (617) 739-0306
> Informed Solutions, Inc. Fax: (617) 232-1064   
> mailto:cjmillerinformed-solutions.com 
> Brookline, MA 02446 USA Registered 4D Developer
>   Providers of 4D and Sybase connectivity
>  http://www.informed-solutions.com  
> 
> This message and any attached documents contain information which may be 
> confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under applicable 
> law.  These materials are intended only for the use of the intended 
> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, you 
> are hereby notified that any distribution, disclosure, printing, copying, 
> storage, modification or the taking of any action in reliance upon this 
> transmission is strictly prohibited.  Delivery of this message to any person 
> other than the intended recipient shall not compromise or waive such 
> confidentiality, privilege or exemption from disclosure as to this 
> communication. 
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:09 PM, Alan Tilson via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hey John,
>> How did you end up in Hawaii?
>> Alan
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:02 PM, John Baughman via 4D_Tech <
>> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am going to chime in here with a recent real world experience.
>>> 
>>> A while back I posted to the NUG a problem that I was having with external
>>> data storage using custom mode. When the data was updated and properly
>>> saved to the external data folder, the field continued to display the old
>>> version of the data until the server or standalone 4D was restarted. This
>>> was a show stopper for me upgrading a client to v16.
>>> 
>>> I called tech support and after uploading a sample db demonstrating the
>>> problem was told that it was in fact a bug and a bug case was opened for
>>> it. This bug existed in 16.1 and R4 beta.
>>> 
>>> I then called Tracy, my sales rep, and asked her to expedite the bug.
>>> 
>>> A couple of weeks ago I received a message from 4D TS saying the bug was
>>> fixed in the latest nightly build of 16.1. I confirmed the fix, but noted
>>> that it was still broken in R4 beta. TS acknowledged this and said that the
>>> fix would not show up in the R releases until R5.
>>> 
>>> 16.2 was released and as expected no bug.
>>> 
>>> Today R4 was released and voila the bug has been fixed.
>>> 
>>> Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly? It does
>>> say to me that 4D does heavily prioritize the bugs in their bug list. For
>>> example, you might have noticed that in 16.2 the issue with the Design
>>> Environment not remembering the open windows from the last session has been
>>> fixed. Not so in R4. Interesting, yes?
>>> 
>>> For me personally, I am not one to complain. I may be naive, but I trust
>>> that the folks working on 4D are doing the best they can. Sure there could
>>> be improvements, but I am one to live with what I got and be patient for
>>> what is yet to come.
>>> 
>>> I understand the frustrations, but that is my 2 cents worth.
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <
>>> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
 
> If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with
>>> Tech
 Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.
 
 I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than
>>> me.
 It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
 database, etc.
 
 It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is NOT
 OUR FAULT. It is their fault.
 
 I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't being
 fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also
>>> appreciate
 that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
 again down the years on this list.
 
 Here's a list of positions that I can no longer accept on face value:
 
 "We aren't documenting that because it might change."
 This is silly in the extreme. Every piece of software might change, lots
>>> of
 them say "This might change in a future version." Even 4D says this
>>> clearly
 in their docs. So when you 

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Chuck Miller via 4D_Tech]

I assume he flew

Regards

Chuck

 Chuck Miller Voice: (617) 739-0306
 Informed Solutions, Inc. Fax: (617) 232-1064   
 mailto:cjmillerinformed-solutions.com 
 Brookline, MA 02446 USA Registered 4D Developer
   Providers of 4D and Sybase connectivity
  http://www.informed-solutions.com  

This message and any attached documents contain information which may be 
confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under applicable 
law.  These materials are intended only for the use of the intended recipient. 
If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, you are hereby 
notified that any distribution, disclosure, printing, copying, storage, 
modification or the taking of any action in reliance upon this transmission is 
strictly prohibited.  Delivery of this message to any person other than the 
intended recipient shall not compromise or waive such confidentiality, 
privilege or exemption from disclosure as to this communication. 

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:09 PM, Alan Tilson via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hey John,
> How did you end up in Hawaii?
> Alan
> 
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:02 PM, John Baughman via 4D_Tech <
> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am going to chime in here with a recent real world experience.
>> 
>> A while back I posted to the NUG a problem that I was having with external
>> data storage using custom mode. When the data was updated and properly
>> saved to the external data folder, the field continued to display the old
>> version of the data until the server or standalone 4D was restarted. This
>> was a show stopper for me upgrading a client to v16.
>> 
>> I called tech support and after uploading a sample db demonstrating the
>> problem was told that it was in fact a bug and a bug case was opened for
>> it. This bug existed in 16.1 and R4 beta.
>> 
>> I then called Tracy, my sales rep, and asked her to expedite the bug.
>> 
>> A couple of weeks ago I received a message from 4D TS saying the bug was
>> fixed in the latest nightly build of 16.1. I confirmed the fix, but noted
>> that it was still broken in R4 beta. TS acknowledged this and said that the
>> fix would not show up in the R releases until R5.
>> 
>> 16.2 was released and as expected no bug.
>> 
>> Today R4 was released and voila the bug has been fixed.
>> 
>> Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly? It does
>> say to me that 4D does heavily prioritize the bugs in their bug list. For
>> example, you might have noticed that in 16.2 the issue with the Design
>> Environment not remembering the open windows from the last session has been
>> fixed. Not so in R4. Interesting, yes?
>> 
>> For me personally, I am not one to complain. I may be naive, but I trust
>> that the folks working on 4D are doing the best they can. Sure there could
>> be improvements, but I am one to live with what I got and be patient for
>> what is yet to come.
>> 
>> I understand the frustrations, but that is my 2 cents worth.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <
>> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
>>> 
 If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with
>> Tech
>>> Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.
>>> 
>>> I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than
>> me.
>>> It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
>>> database, etc.
>>> 
>>> It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is NOT
>>> OUR FAULT. It is their fault.
>>> 
>>> I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't being
>>> fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also
>> appreciate
>>> that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
>>> again down the years on this list.
>>> 
>>> Here's a list of positions that I can no longer accept on face value:
>>> 
>>> "We aren't documenting that because it might change."
>>> This is silly in the extreme. Every piece of software might change, lots
>> of
>>> them say "This might change in a future version." Even 4D says this
>> clearly
>>> in their docs. So when you hear that line, it's an excuse for something
>>> else - who knows what.
>>> 
>>> "It isn't Tech Support's job to report bugs."
>>> Of course it is.
>>> 
>>> "You have to <> to get you bug fixed."
>>> 1. It's not my bug, it's THEIR bug. They're not doing me a favor.
>>> 2. Jumping through the hoops makes no particular impact that I can see.
>>> 
>>> "Feature requests should be submitted through the appropriate section of
>>> the forums where there is open voting."
>>> True. Does this get feature requests implemented? Not as far as I can
>> tell.
>>> (Well, I did see one - but it was 

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Alan Tilson via 4D_Tech]

Hey John,
How did you end up in Hawaii?
Alan

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:02 PM, John Baughman via 4D_Tech <
4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:

> I am going to chime in here with a recent real world experience.
>
> A while back I posted to the NUG a problem that I was having with external
> data storage using custom mode. When the data was updated and properly
> saved to the external data folder, the field continued to display the old
> version of the data until the server or standalone 4D was restarted. This
> was a show stopper for me upgrading a client to v16.
>
> I called tech support and after uploading a sample db demonstrating the
> problem was told that it was in fact a bug and a bug case was opened for
> it. This bug existed in 16.1 and R4 beta.
>
> I then called Tracy, my sales rep, and asked her to expedite the bug.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I received a message from 4D TS saying the bug was
> fixed in the latest nightly build of 16.1. I confirmed the fix, but noted
> that it was still broken in R4 beta. TS acknowledged this and said that the
> fix would not show up in the R releases until R5.
>
> 16.2 was released and as expected no bug.
>
> Today R4 was released and voila the bug has been fixed.
>
> Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly? It does
> say to me that 4D does heavily prioritize the bugs in their bug list. For
> example, you might have noticed that in 16.2 the issue with the Design
> Environment not remembering the open windows from the last session has been
> fixed. Not so in R4. Interesting, yes?
>
> For me personally, I am not one to complain. I may be naive, but I trust
> that the folks working on 4D are doing the best they can. Sure there could
> be improvements, but I am one to live with what I got and be patient for
> what is yet to come.
>
> I understand the frustrations, but that is my 2 cents worth.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <
> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with
> Tech
> > Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.
> >
> > I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than
> me.
> > It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
> > database, etc.
> >
> > It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is NOT
> > OUR FAULT. It is their fault.
> >
> > I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't being
> > fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also
> appreciate
> > that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
> > again down the years on this list.
> >
> > Here's a list of positions that I can no longer accept on face value:
> >
> > "We aren't documenting that because it might change."
> > This is silly in the extreme. Every piece of software might change, lots
> of
> > them say "This might change in a future version." Even 4D says this
> clearly
> > in their docs. So when you hear that line, it's an excuse for something
> > else - who knows what.
> >
> > "It isn't Tech Support's job to report bugs."
> > Of course it is.
> >
> > "You have to <> to get you bug fixed."
> > 1. It's not my bug, it's THEIR bug. They're not doing me a favor.
> > 2. Jumping through the hoops makes no particular impact that I can see.
> >
> > "Feature requests should be submitted through the appropriate section of
> > the forums where there is open voting."
> > True. Does this get feature requests implemented? Not as far as I can
> tell.
> > (Well, I did see one - but it was from Rob and he's got a special
> > relationship with 4D.) My cynical interpretation is that the feature
> > request forum exists to stop people complaining about missing features.
> >
> > Your mileage may vary.
> > **
> > 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> > FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> > Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> > Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> > Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> > **
>
> John Baughman
> Kailua, Hawaii
> (808) 262-0328
> john...@hawaii.rr.com
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **
>
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Alan Tilson via 4D_Tech]

sorry, meant to send this directly to John!
Alan

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Alan Tilson  wrote:

> Hey John,
> How did you end up in Hawaii?
> Alan
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:02 PM, John Baughman via 4D_Tech <
> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
>
>> I am going to chime in here with a recent real world experience.
>>
>> A while back I posted to the NUG a problem that I was having with
>> external data storage using custom mode. When the data was updated and
>> properly saved to the external data folder, the field continued to display
>> the old version of the data until the server or standalone 4D was
>> restarted. This was a show stopper for me upgrading a client to v16.
>>
>> I called tech support and after uploading a sample db demonstrating the
>> problem was told that it was in fact a bug and a bug case was opened for
>> it. This bug existed in 16.1 and R4 beta.
>>
>> I then called Tracy, my sales rep, and asked her to expedite the bug.
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago I received a message from 4D TS saying the bug was
>> fixed in the latest nightly build of 16.1. I confirmed the fix, but noted
>> that it was still broken in R4 beta. TS acknowledged this and said that the
>> fix would not show up in the R releases until R5.
>>
>> 16.2 was released and as expected no bug.
>>
>> Today R4 was released and voila the bug has been fixed.
>>
>> Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly? It does
>> say to me that 4D does heavily prioritize the bugs in their bug list. For
>> example, you might have noticed that in 16.2 the issue with the Design
>> Environment not remembering the open windows from the last session has been
>> fixed. Not so in R4. Interesting, yes?
>>
>> For me personally, I am not one to complain. I may be naive, but I trust
>> that the folks working on 4D are doing the best they can. Sure there could
>> be improvements, but I am one to live with what I got and be patient for
>> what is yet to come.
>>
>> I understand the frustrations, but that is my 2 cents worth.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <
>> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with
>> Tech
>> > Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.
>> >
>> > I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than
>> me.
>> > It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
>> > database, etc.
>> >
>> > It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is NOT
>> > OUR FAULT. It is their fault.
>> >
>> > I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't being
>> > fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also
>> appreciate
>> > that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
>> > again down the years on this list.
>> >
>> > Here's a list of positions that I can no longer accept on face value:
>> >
>> > "We aren't documenting that because it might change."
>> > This is silly in the extreme. Every piece of software might change,
>> lots of
>> > them say "This might change in a future version." Even 4D says this
>> clearly
>> > in their docs. So when you hear that line, it's an excuse for something
>> > else - who knows what.
>> >
>> > "It isn't Tech Support's job to report bugs."
>> > Of course it is.
>> >
>> > "You have to <> to get you bug fixed."
>> > 1. It's not my bug, it's THEIR bug. They're not doing me a favor.
>> > 2. Jumping through the hoops makes no particular impact that I can see.
>> >
>> > "Feature requests should be submitted through the appropriate section of
>> > the forums where there is open voting."
>> > True. Does this get feature requests implemented? Not as far as I can
>> tell.
>> > (Well, I did see one - but it was from Rob and he's got a special
>> > relationship with 4D.) My cynical interpretation is that the feature
>> > request forum exists to stop people complaining about missing features.
>> >
>> > Your mileage may vary.
>> > **
>> > 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
>> > FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
>> > Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
>> > Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
>> > Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
>> > **
>>
>> John Baughman
>> Kailua, Hawaii
>> (808) 262-0328
>> john...@hawaii.rr.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
>> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
>> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
>> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
>> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
>> **
>>
>
>

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech]

On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:04 PM, David Adams wrote:

> Again:
> 
> Start worker
> Open file.
> Use file
> Close file.
> Kill worker
> 
> Start worker again
> *** FIle lock conflict ***
> 
> 4D's accepted it as a bug as of some months back.

I finally now understand the bug you found. Thanks for finally boiling it down 
to about 20 words. I don’t remember seeing the problem expressed this simply 
and clearly. 

I agree it is a bug. And it appears 4D also agrees that it is a bug since you 
say "4D's accepted it as a bug as of some months back.” Thanks for finding this 
problem.

So you are irritated that they have chosen to not prioritizing the fixing of 
this bug? You want to use workers for writing to log files on disk and you 
can’t. Is that what this is all about?

Question: If you don’t “KILL WORKER” and continue to reuse the same worker over 
and over again to keep writing to files does it work and there is no file lock 
issues?

Tim


Tim Nevels
Innovative Solutions
785-749-3444
timnev...@mac.com


**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

Hey John,

Thanks again for trying. I kill the worker from *within* the worker *after*
closing the file. It *usually* works. But "usually" is worthless when the
consequences of it not working are a dead server.

4D has accepted it as a bug in, I think 16.0. they just haven't fixed it.

For now, I'm not using files from workers. I'm streaming C_OBJECTS over
CALL WORKER, invoking a method that transforms the results, bundles it up
and then pushes the data in batches to Loggly. We'll see how that goes.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John Baughman via 4D_Tech]

OOOPS!

In my last example with the worker killing itself there should only be one line…

CALL WORKER(“worker”;”LogSomething”) //worker opens the file/logs something to 
the file/closes the file/Kills itself

Don’t need to kill the process again.

John


> On Oct 6, 2017, at 12:32 PM, John Baughman  wrote:
> 
> CALL WORKER(“worker”;”LogSomething”) //worker opens the file/logs something 
> to the file/closes the file/Kills itself
> KILL WORKER(“worker”)

John Baughman
Kailua, Hawaii
(808) 262-0328
john...@hawaii.rr.com





**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John Baughman via 4D_Tech]

Hi David,

   How/when are you killing the worker. You must give the worker time to 
close the file. This will not work…

CALL WORKER(“worker”;”LogSomething”) //worker opens the file/logs something to 
the file/closes the file
KILL WORKER(“worker”)

The worker will be killed before it closes the file.

This will work…

CALL WORKER(“worker”;”LogSomething”) //worker opens the file/logs something to 
the file/closes the file
DELAY PROCESS(Current Process;10) //or more if it takes longer than 10 ticks to 
open and close the file
KILL WORKER(“worker”)

When I tested this at first I used a Repeat loop to make sure that the 
file was closed. I then found that a DELAY PROCESS worked just as well…

CALL WORKER(“worker”;”LogSomething”) //worker opens the file/logs something to 
the file/closes the file
$onErrCall:=Method called on error
ON ERR CALL("ExpectedError")
Repeat 
vError:=False
$docRef:=Open document($file)
If (Not(vError))
CLOSE DOCUMENT($docRef)
End if 
Until (Not(vError))
ON ERR CALL($onErrCall)
KILL WORKER(“worker”)

EVEN BETTER! I just thought, why not have the worker kill itself? Wow! 
just test and it works!

CALL WORKER(“worker”;”LogSomething”) //worker opens the file/logs something to 
the file/closes the file/Kills itself
KILL WORKER(“worker”)

//worker method
$docRef:=Open document($file)
//record the event or whatever
CLOSE DOCUMENT($docRef)
KILL WORKER("worker")

Does this work for you?

John




> On Oct 6, 2017, at 12:02 PM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Again:
> 
> Start worker
> Open file.
> Use file
> Close file.
> Kill worker
> 
> Start worker again
> *** FIle lock conflict ***
> 
> 4D's accepted it as a bug as of some months back.
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **

John Baughman
Kailua, Hawaii
(808) 262-0328
john...@hawaii.rr.com





**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

Again:

Start worker
Open file.
Use file
Close file.
Kill worker

Start worker again
*** FIle lock conflict ***

4D's accepted it as a bug as of some months back.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

Hey Chip, thanks or chiming in.

I've always been disciplined about opening and closing files on my own, I
have no idea what 4D's defaults are on this...or if there is even a
documented (promised) behavior. The traces of old, dead workers I was
referring to *might* not actually exist and that wasn't what I was talking
about. I'm talking closing the file explicitly, killing the worker
explicitly, and then the worker is restarted. And that's when you can run
into a conflict. Which should never happen, but it does.

Regarding <>whatever, you can't use that kind of variable in a preemptive
process of any kind. That's one of the more painful costs of admission, but
it also makes sense.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech]

you cut out the first part :
while doing testing  :)

I revert to local or process (as appropriate) in final version

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 06:59:30 -1000, John Baughman wrote:
>> 
>> I do this:
>> <>Doc_Ref:=Open Document
> 
> 
> Great idea. That is unless you think global variables are evil ;-)
---
Gas is for washing parts
Alcohol is for drinkin'
Nitromethane is for racing 
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John Baughman via 4D_Tech]

> On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I do this:
> <>Doc_Ref:=Open Document


Great idea. That is unless you think global variables are evil ;-)

As any one working in 4D for any length of time knows, you have to close a 
document as soon as possible, immediately is not too early. So the issue should 
only be one faced during development. Deployed, the developer should have 
insured that a file would never be left open inadvertently.  I think this is 
where David has run into problems with his logging efforts and workers.

That being said, I think Chip has hit the nail on the head with regard to 
David’s issue with file locking and workers. Files do not unlock when any type 
of process dies unless they were explicitly unlocked before the process died. 
Why would it be any different with workers?

We developers have learned to work around this poor behavior without complaint 
forever so David’s request for a fix is given a priority so low it may never 
bubble up to the top. 

John

John Baughman
Kailua, Hawaii
(808) 262-0328
john...@hawaii.rr.com





**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech]

David,
my experience with file locks - not concurrently (in as much as you are 
trying to do), but generically while trying to read/write/ etc disk 
files:

I do not do this when testing any more
$Doc_ref:=Open Document

I do this:
<>Doc_Ref:=Open Document

Why?
because when the process that opened the document is killed/crashes/etc 
and an explicit Close Document($Doc_Ref) command is not executed the 
file REMAINS OPEN (i.e. locked in write mode) forever, until a restart 
of 4D.

as far as I am aware 4D has NEVER closed a file due to the opening 
process dying/aborting/crashing/or even completing in a normal fashion, 
if the appropriate Close Document command is not executed the file 
remains open, and locked for further/other writing.

back to <>Doc_Ref - this way if I kill the process in which the 
document was opened, because it does not behave as I desire, I can 
close the open document from anywhere.

Now this is not to say that the issue you are having is directly 
related, but it is, as far as I know one of those "...it is just the 
way 4D works..." things  :(

Chip

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 10:58:49 +0200, David Adams via 4D_Tech wrote:
> My problem boils down to how workers deal with file locks.
---
Gas is for washing parts
Alcohol is for drinkin'
Nitromethane is for racing 
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

> Not an anomaly.

John & Neil, thanks for the reports, I find them encouraging.

We're dealing with somewhat different situations. You're going through US
Tech Support, which I have no contact with and you're using the TAOW, which
we don't currently have access to in AU/NZ. The business case for 4D
devoting resources to rolling their own bulletin boards and help desk
software instead of renting tools from Atlassian (Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
Oi! Oi Oi) or similar escapes mebut that's a different discussion.

Anyway, our tech support is Wayne Stewart. Everyone loves Wayne. If I made
anyone think that I was criticizing Wayne, I am sorry and also sad. Wayne
is a helpful *to a fault*. Even now he's trying to come up with workaround
for my particular bug. But here's the thing, it's a *concurrency problem*
and it is *inside of 4D*. That's not a problem we can fix. The only thing
Wayne can do (and has done months ago) is kick it to France. Its their bug
and only they can fix it. Wayne told me that they accepted it as a bug
months ago, and that's the last we heard.

Why do I care about this bug? No one here will have noticed, but I don't
talk about bugs a whole lot. For the most part, I don't care. If 4D can't
do it one way and I can find another, I'll do that. If 4D can't do it, I'll
find another tool. In this case I *do* care. Here's why: It's an important
bug that blocks certain designs and leaves me mistrusting workers and
preemptive mode quite fundamentally.

My problem boils down to how workers deal with file locks. In theory, a
worker processes requests in strict order. (They're not requests, they're
EXECUTE statements run in the context of the worker, but nevermind).  So,
if you have a worker and close a file, it should be closed completely. If
you kill the worker and it restarts, the file close done explicitly in the
worker should finish before the worker dies. Managing file locks
across/amongst process is the sort of basic concurrency problem that was
worked out over 50 years ago. And when I say "worked out", I don't mean
"dude wrote some code" I mean the basic reality and mathematics of
concurrency were worked out. In that process, the semaphore was invented.
Why? Because it is necessary in many situations.

Are semaphores hard to get your head around? Yes. But what's _really_ at
issue are the issues of concurrent computing themselves, that's what's hard
to grasp. I remember how many smart people just could not accept that
semaphores were necessary to lock shared resources when V3 introduced
semaphores. Some people _still_ don't seem to grasp them. Here are the
options that you've got for a situation where a race condition might occur:

1) You develop a system that is *provably* never going to have the problem,
ever.
2) You are inevitably going to encounter the problem.

Because science. There is no third option other than "it doesn't seem
likely, so I'll risk it." See outcome 2.

In my case, I'm architecting some stuff that is going to be very high
volume, so option 2 isn't a choice. So I need a truly safe solution. I
stumbled across the file lock problem *by accident*. I don't want this bug
to exist. But here's the thing, if what we've been told about workers and
preemptive process is all correct, then this bug is *impossible*. But it's
there. So there's something most definitely wrong. Is the problem very
narrow? Is it widespread? I have no way of knowing and 4D has told me
exactly nothing. (I asked on the Forums but was a) told nothing or b)
accused of trying to "sabotage" the command, whatever that means.) So, I
have to go with what I can see:

It is not safe to rely on file open/close in workers.

I tried a delay and a bunch of other things and they don't solve the
problem. I guess never closing the file might work, but that's not an
option. (I don't want a 2GB HTTPD log file, thanks.) And here's the thing,
there is no workaround to a concurrency bug.

It's 4D's bug, only they can fix it.

So, in my case, to get my custom log data out I have to avoid files
entirely. Again, high volume - race condition possible = race condition
inevitable. I've got two different architectures:

Source process ---> CALL WORKER ---> HTTP Request --> Logging platform

Or

[Log_Record]
Read with a standard process
Write to a log file

There is so much data involved that log records aren't a sustainable
solution. (The last time we went down this road we killed 4D and then
InnoDB in MySQL. Postgres, you're next!)

As I've been unclear: The lock problem manifests differently in cooperative
and preemptive processes, but occurs in both.

There is no workaround, only alternative architectures and an actual fix to
4D.

My frustration is not with tech support - Wayne's great - it's with France
not fixing their bugs. And, as it has _always_ been for me, they're an
informational black hole. I don't get any information from them. A few
times over the years, ever. That's it. So, how am I to know if they're
working on this? 

RE: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Dennis, Neil via 4D_Tech]

> Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly?

Not an anomaly.

I have found the same great service, even with a tough bug... we had a problem 
with web packets not being delivered. We had wireshark captures and web logs 
showing the problem but could not reproduce it outside of our environment.

I submitted the issue with 4D, the worked with me and within a few days had a 
system on their end to be able to reproduce the problem and reported it as a 
bug. I'm expecting the 16.3 to have the fix.

Other bugs I have submitted have also been fixed in a timely manner and I was 
kept in the loop the entire process.

I think they are doing a great job.

Neil





--

Privacy Disclaimer: This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee you 
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please delete this email 
from your system and notify the sender immediately by replying to this email.  
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, 
copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this 
information is strictly prohibited.

The Alternative Investments division of UMB Fund Services provides a full range 
of services to hedge funds, funds of funds and private equity funds.  Any tax 
advice in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by 
a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (a) avoiding 
penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (b) promoting, marketing, or 
recommending to another party any matter addressed herein.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John Baughman via 4D_Tech]

I am going to chime in here with a recent real world experience.

A while back I posted to the NUG a problem that I was having with external data 
storage using custom mode. When the data was updated and properly saved to the 
external data folder, the field continued to display the old version of the 
data until the server or standalone 4D was restarted. This was a show stopper 
for me upgrading a client to v16.

I called tech support and after uploading a sample db demonstrating the problem 
was told that it was in fact a bug and a bug case was opened for it. This bug 
existed in 16.1 and R4 beta.

I then called Tracy, my sales rep, and asked her to expedite the bug.

A couple of weeks ago I received a message from 4D TS saying the bug was fixed 
in the latest nightly build of 16.1. I confirmed the fix, but noted that it was 
still broken in R4 beta. TS acknowledged this and said that the fix would not 
show up in the R releases until R5.

16.2 was released and as expected no bug.

Today R4 was released and voila the bug has been fixed. 

Now in the context of this thread, this appears to be an anomaly? It does say 
to me that 4D does heavily prioritize the bugs in their bug list. For example, 
you might have noticed that in 16.2 the issue with the Design Environment not 
remembering the open windows from the last session has been fixed. Not so in 
R4. Interesting, yes?

For me personally, I am not one to complain. I may be naive, but I trust that 
the folks working on 4D are doing the best they can. Sure there could be 
improvements, but I am one to live with what I got and be patient for what is 
yet to come. 

I understand the frustrations, but that is my 2 cents worth.

John





> On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with Tech
> Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.
> 
> I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than me.
> It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
> database, etc.
> 
> It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is NOT
> OUR FAULT. It is their fault.
> 
> I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't being
> fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also appreciate
> that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
> again down the years on this list.
> 
> Here's a list of positions that I can no longer accept on face value:
> 
> "We aren't documenting that because it might change."
> This is silly in the extreme. Every piece of software might change, lots of
> them say "This might change in a future version." Even 4D says this clearly
> in their docs. So when you hear that line, it's an excuse for something
> else - who knows what.
> 
> "It isn't Tech Support's job to report bugs."
> Of course it is.
> 
> "You have to <> to get you bug fixed."
> 1. It's not my bug, it's THEIR bug. They're not doing me a favor.
> 2. Jumping through the hoops makes no particular impact that I can see.
> 
> "Feature requests should be submitted through the appropriate section of
> the forums where there is open voting."
> True. Does this get feature requests implemented? Not as far as I can tell.
> (Well, I did see one - but it was from Rob and he's got a special
> relationship with 4D.) My cynical interpretation is that the feature
> request forum exists to stop people complaining about missing features.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **

John Baughman
Kailua, Hawaii
(808) 262-0328
john...@hawaii.rr.com





**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

> If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with Tech
Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.

I have done this. It's a bug that 4D should care about *way* more than me.
It crashes the server. Easily Submitted to tech support with a demo
database, etc.

It is NOT MY FAULT that 4D doesn't fix properly reported bugs. It is NOT
OUR FAULT. It is their fault.

I'm getting tired of hearing from people that someone bugs aren't being
fixed because we're somehow mysteriously doing it wrong. I also appreciate
that I'm one of the very people that spit out that line over, and over
again down the years on this list.

Here's a list of positions that I can no longer accept on face value:

"We aren't documenting that because it might change."
This is silly in the extreme. Every piece of software might change, lots of
them say "This might change in a future version." Even 4D says this clearly
in their docs. So when you hear that line, it's an excuse for something
else - who knows what.

"It isn't Tech Support's job to report bugs."
Of course it is.

"You have to <> to get you bug fixed."
1. It's not my bug, it's THEIR bug. They're not doing me a favor.
2. Jumping through the hoops makes no particular impact that I can see.

"Feature requests should be submitted through the appropriate section of
the forums where there is open voting."
True. Does this get feature requests implemented? Not as far as I can tell.
(Well, I did see one - but it was from Rob and he's got a special
relationship with 4D.) My cynical interpretation is that the feature
request forum exists to stop people complaining about missing features.

Your mileage may vary.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Tony Ringsmuth via 4D_Tech]

David,

In my opinion, Stability has improved A LOT since the R-release program.
I was able to put my OEM base of clients on 16.0 HF2. 

There are new features I really look forward to:  in some ways – they’re 
getting fewer & farther between: just because 4D has advanced.

I think the idea of asking 4D to make a whole version dedicated to just bug 
fixes: no new features is a poor idea.

If you have a bug that you really want fixes:  you need to work with Tech 
Support.  If you don’t: then it’s just wishful thinking.

Tony




On 10/3/17, 2:46 PM, "4D_Tech on behalf of David Adams via 4D_Tech" 
<4d_tech-boun...@lists.4d.com on behalf of 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:

...but seriously, what I'd like to see 4D do is an *entire release* that
consists of *nothing* but fixing bugs - as many as they can find, as many
as we can find and longstanding annoyances. No fancy new features. Just
cleaning up crashes, usability bugs (I see lingering 2004 or V11 usability
bugs in the Design environment every single day in V16) and other weird
stuff.

From what I've ever heard, this is what the bulk of developers *actually*
want.



**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

RE: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech]

I with David on this one.
I reported a bug in 4D's math libraries back in v2.3 (this would have 
been 1993 or 1994 I think).
it had to do with small values and comparison with zero. Very small 
real values (even when not zero), were in a comparison = zero.

It has been fixed in v13, I do not recall if it was fixed in v11.
test code:
C_REAL($x)
$x:=1.2*(10^-11)

Case of 
: ($x=0)
ALERT("=zero")

: ($x<0)
ALERT(" zero")
End case 
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:56:19 +, Dennis, Neil via 4D_Tech wrote:
>> I'm with John on this one. The payoff for sending in bug reports and 
>> feature
>> requests is incredibly low. Zero feedback and results are rare.
>> *No matter what hoops are jumped.*
> 
> I have a different experience, I have reported a few bugs.
> 
> The ones that I have submitted that are reproducible I include a 
> small database demonstrating them. The bug is filed, I get email 
> notifications as it is updated and accepted, then I get an email 
> telling me it is in one of the nightly builds and I can test it.
> 
> The one that I reported that I could not reproduce, I had constant 
> emails between me and tech support until they actually figured out 
> how to reproduce it then sent it on to the engineers.
> 
> I have never felt ignored or neglected. I think they do a great job 
> with bugs that I have reported.
> 
> IMO
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Privacy Disclaimer: This message contains confidential information 
> and is intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the 
> named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this 
> email. Please delete this email from your system and notify the 
> sender immediately by replying to this email.  If you are not the 
> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, 
> distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this 
> information is strictly prohibited.
> 
> The Alternative Investments division of UMB Fund Services provides a 
> full range of services to hedge funds, funds of funds and private 
> equity funds.  Any tax advice in this communication is not intended 
> to be used, and cannot be used, by a client or any other person or 
> entity for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may be imposed 
> on any taxpayer or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to 
> another party any matter addressed herein.
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **
---
Gas is for washing parts
Alcohol is for drinkin'
Nitromethane is for racing 
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

> It is what it is. What’s more important, getting the bug fixed or
bitching about customer service?
>  I always vote for doing whatever it takes to get bugs fixed.

Agreed! But I've found _nothing_ that works. Ever. I've jumped through all
of the hoops down the year, it hasn't worked. My crashing bug with V16.0+
where I supplied a database to demonstrate the problem in about a minute?
Nothing. No response, no action, no fix.

I take exception to the notion that somehow our bugs aren't getting fixed
because we're "not doing them right." Sure, that explains some of it. All
of it? Not a chance. *It's not our fault.* You mentioned that it's not Tim
Penner's job to take comments here and report bugs. Why not? In fact, Tim
does just that a lot of times - which seems like good service from Tim and
the US crew. I mean, it's crazy to think that somehow it's *our* fault that
a bug isn't getting fixed even though 4D knows about it. It's their bug,
not ours. I can't wait on bug fixes anyway. With their response times and
release cycles, I need to fix a problem in an hour or a day - I can't wait
six months to forever. If I can't use 4D for a task, I just don't. When I
reported my crashing bug (with demo database), I did it for *their* sake. I
figured "Hey, they're proud of preemptive mode and workers. Guess they'd
like to know it can bring down the server." Not so much. I don't get that.
In my case, I'm using a different architecture (an inferior one) as I can't
rely on logging to disk from a worker.

I used to report bugs and make feature requests a lot. I was one of the top
submitters for some time. Then one day I realized out of hundreds (probably
thousands) of reports, I'd gotten a couple of emails. Ever. I knew how to
do a "proper" submission because I'd worked at 4D for four years in Tech
support and then running IT in the USA. I couldn't get support for crashing
servers *then*. And it was their business. But I definitely knew how to
format a bug report. Down the years I've used bugs.4d.fr and more lately
the Forums. Still, no change. No feedback, no fixes. Maybe it's just me?
I'm not kidding about that. Neil reports a very different, and
satisfactory-sounding, experience.

Part of the problem is doubtlessly that as an Aussie developer, I don't
have access to the bug system.

But here is a little thought experiment. Imagine two different company's
with different attitudes to bugs and quality. Let's call them Huey and
Dewey.

Huey is *passionate* about quality and customer service. They take is as a
core part of the business to detect bugs before they reach customers, to
improve their processes when a bug does slip through, to release fixes as
soon as possible - even before customers know that there is a bug, and to
do everything reasonable to help customers reporting a problem. They're
constantly trying to improve their already substantial documentation. (I
saw a company just like this last year, it was a thing of true beauty.)

Dewy, well Dewey just doesn't know. They don't keep customers up to date,
they add a lot of hassle between customers and problems, they don't
actively look for non-critical bugs, they have no roadmap, they don't share
their priorities or even logic, and they ignore problems that they are
fully aware of. Many key features and behaviors are undocumented or
underdocumented.

What does 4D look more like? Huey or Dewy?
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

Dennis,

That's great to hear. This is definitely not my experience...perhaps they
don't want to hear from me. I'm glad that you're getting good support,
that's encouraging.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Douglas Cryer via 4D_Tech]

Yes please, what David said…

> David Adams wrote:
> 
> ...but seriously, what I'd like to see 4D do is an *entire release* that
> consists of *nothing* but fixing bugs - as many as they can find, as many
> as we can find and longstanding annoyances. No fancy new features. Just
> cleaning up crashes, usability bugs (I see lingering 2004 or V11 usability
> bugs in the Design environment every single day in V16) and other weird
> stuff.


Hopefully v17 will bring with it some stability.  Looking back we skipped v12, 
v14 and so far have not used v16 in production.

My job is not to spend time identifying and reporting bugs to 4D.  My job is 
delivering solutions to my customers.  Sometimes that involves using non 4D 
solutions, sometimes it involves working around long standing bugs or 
undesirable features of 4D.  When 4D becomes an open source project then I will 
contribute to its development but while I am paying hard cash it is 4D’s job to 
provide the debugging, analysis and fixing resources.  If a version or feature 
is unstable, untrusted or unusable I simply do not adopt it or I adopt it in a 
way that is not going to hurt my clients, that is my job.

Regards,  Dougie


telekinetix Limited- J. Douglas Cryer
Phone : 01234 761759  Mobile : 07973 675 218
2nd Floor Broadway House, 4-6 The Broadway, Bedford MK40 2TE
Email : jdcr...@telekinetix.com   Web : 
http://www.telekinetix.com 

 
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Bernd Fröhlich via 4D_Tech]

David Adams:

> ..but seriously, what I'd like to see 4D do is an *entire release* that
> consists of *nothing* but fixing bugs - as many as they can find, as many
> as we can find and longstanding annoyances. No fancy new features. Just
> cleaning up crashes, usability bugs (I see lingering 2004 or V11 usability
> bugs in the Design environment every single day in V16) and other weird
> stuff.

YES, PLEASE!!!

It is NOT my job as a 4D user to jump through hoops the report bugs and not 
even be able to see reported bugs of others.
It is 4Ds job to fix bugs that they know of, regardles where they got to know 
them.

When I find a bug, I report it here to warn other users, find a workaround and 
move on.
When 4D decides to make their bug list public (like e.g. Xojo does), I might 
change my view.

Greetings from Germany,
Bernd Fröhlich
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John DeSoi via 4D_Tech]

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Dennis, Neil via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> The ones that I have submitted that are reproducible I include a small 
> database demonstrating them. The bug is filed, I get email notifications as 
> it is updated and accepted, then I get an email telling me it is in one of 
> the nightly builds and I can test it.

This is the key difference. I spent about an hour this morning looking at this 
again and could not find any cause or reason. If I had, I would have opened up 
a tech support case.

> 
> The one that I reported that I could not reproduce, I had constant emails 
> between me and tech support until they actually figured out how to reproduce 
> it then sent it on to the engineers.

Yes, and this what I don't have time for. My only goal for today was to update 
my observation that I had not seen this issue previously in 16.2. The effort 
for 4D to follow this list (assuming they already do) is tiny compared to 
filing a bug without a reproducible test case. If the information on this list 
is not helpful to 4D in any way, they are free to ignore it. I find 
observations posted by others to be helpful and informative.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.




**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech]

On Oct 3, 2017, at 3:49 PM, David Adams wrote:

> I'm with John on this one. The payoff for sending in bug reports and
> feature requests is incredibly low. Zero feedback and results are rare. *No
> matter what hoops are jumped.*
> 
> 4D the company gives the _very_ clear impression that they just don't want
> to know. If they do want to know, they're doing a terrible job of making
> that clear, making it possible, making it work, or making it worth out time
> to even try.

If this is the case, then I have to agree with you. 4D Inc. sucks.

Tim


Tim Nevels
Innovative Solutions
785-749-3444
timnev...@mac.com


**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech]

On Oct 3, 2017, at 3:49 PM, David Adams wrote:

>> That’s not his job. It is the job of every 4D developer to report bugs to

>> 4D by opening a tech support case.
>> And to refuse to close that tech support case, or allow it to auto close,
>> until the bug is fixed.
> 
> Sigh. Brining a fresh new flavor to the concept of "world class" customer
> service...

It is what it is. What’s more important, getting the bug fixed or bitching 
about customer service? I always vote for doing whatever it takes to get bugs 
fixed.

Now for a story…

Before I was a 4D developer, I worked for a small company that had an IBM 
System/36 computer. I was their “Data Processing Manager”. In other words I ran 
all the jobs on the computer and also did RPG programming on the system. Did 
some COBOL programming too. This was back in the 80’s before everybody at a 
company had a PC sitting on their desk. A few people had dumb terminals 
connected to the System/36. Users would come to me and report problems, bugs or 
changes to programs and I would handle them however I saw fit. It was a one man 
show. If you were nice, and I liked you, I would fix things for you. 

The company got bought by a bigger company that had a real IT department with a 
manager and programmer and other staff. The manager came to visit me and find 
out what I did and how things worked. This IT manager was now my boss. 

He asked me how I dealt with user requests. I said, they call me on the phone 
and tell me things, or stop by my office and tell me things. He said “don’t you 
have a programing change request form?" I said no, nothing official. No form 
they have to fill out. He said that changes today. From now on every program 
change request must be made in writing so we can track it. 

I told my new boss, I didn’t think the users here would like that. It’s too 
much work for them. And he said if the problem/bug they are reporting is so 
trivial that it is a waste of their time to complete a simple paper form, then 
it is not worth my time either. 

Maybe you could say I was providing “world class customer support”. I just 
thought I was doing my job. I was young, in my 20’s. He was in his 50’s and 
from the “real world”. 

Could be we are dealing with the same kind of situation. If all you are only 
willing to do is post a quick message on the iNUG and expect 4D Engineering to 
just to their feet and start investigating your claims from a iNUG message, you 
may be asking for a lot. 

4D has a way to officially report a bug. If it’s too much work to use that 
system — create a tech support case — then they are not interested in devoting 
time to it. (Refer to my story above.)

Just so I understand you correctly, in order for 4D Inc. to have “world class 
customer support” they need to take action for EVERY bug or issue reported on 
the iNUG.  Some action must being taken by 4D Engineering. And details of those 
actions must also be reported to the world by a message post on the iNUG. 

I would agree with you that if they did that they would would be providing 
“world class customer support”. But is that realistic? Can you name other 
software development company that does this?

Sorry to act like a hardon about this, but let’s get real because we live and 
work in the real world. 

Tim


Tim Nevels
Innovative Solutions
785-749-3444
timnev...@mac.com


**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

RE: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Dennis, Neil via 4D_Tech]

> I'm with John on this one. The payoff for sending in bug reports and feature
> requests is incredibly low. Zero feedback and results are rare.
> *No matter what hoops are jumped.*

I have a different experience, I have reported a few bugs.

The ones that I have submitted that are reproducible I include a small database 
demonstrating them. The bug is filed, I get email notifications as it is 
updated and accepted, then I get an email telling me it is in one of the 
nightly builds and I can test it.

The one that I reported that I could not reproduce, I had constant emails 
between me and tech support until they actually figured out how to reproduce it 
then sent it on to the engineers.

I have never felt ignored or neglected. I think they do a great job with bugs 
that I have reported.

IMO

Neil




--

Privacy Disclaimer: This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee you 
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please delete this email 
from your system and notify the sender immediately by replying to this email.  
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, 
copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this 
information is strictly prohibited.

The Alternative Investments division of UMB Fund Services provides a full range 
of services to hedge funds, funds of funds and private equity funds.  Any tax 
advice in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by 
a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (a) avoiding 
penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (b) promoting, marketing, or 
recommending to another party any matter addressed herein.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

Tim,

I'm with John on this one. The payoff for sending in bug reports and
feature requests is incredibly low. Zero feedback and results are rare. *No
matter what hoops are jumped.*

4D the company gives the _very_ clear impression that they just don't want
to know. If they do want to know, they're doing a terrible job of making
that clear, making it possible, making it work, or making it worth out time
to even try.

IMO
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John DeSoi via 4D_Tech]

Hi Tim,

I have not opened a tech support case for this issue. But I have opened my 
share of them. The only way to get something fixed is to provide a reproducible 
example or perhaps a log with some detail that can help 4D fix it. Even with 
these details provided, many problems remain unsolved. It is a lot of time and 
effort and there are only so many hours in a day. 

I find it useful when other developers report their problems and experiences 
(good and bad) on this list. Other developers with the same problem may have 
identified a helpful work-around or alternative solution.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.



> On Oct 3, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> John, did you immediately contact 4D Tech Support and open a support case for 
> this bug? If you did, then you are helping to get this bug fixed. 
> 
> As you must know, just reporting the bug and talking about it here on the 
> iNUG will accomplish absolutely nothing regarding getting this fixed.

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[David Adams via 4D_Tech]

> That’s not his job. It is the job of every 4D developer to report bugs to
4D by opening a tech support case.
> And to refuse to close that tech support case, or allow it to auto close,
until the bug is fixed.

Sigh. Brining a fresh new flavor to the concept of "world class" customer
service...
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech]

On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:57 AM, John DeSoi wrote:

> I just encountered this in version 16.2 (Mac, single user merged 
> application). The Locked function returns true, but LOCKED BY has empty 
> values for everything. The record is only accessed by one process and never 
> becomes unlocked even though it is repeatedly reloaded via subsequent queries.

John, did you immediately contact 4D Tech Support and open a support case for 
this bug? If you did, then you are helping to get this bug fixed. 

As you must know, just reporting the bug and talking about it here on the iNUG 
will accomplish absolutely nothing regarding getting this fixed.

The only way to get this bug to be recognized and have 4D devote some 
engineering time to fixing it is to have 50+ tech support cases opened by 50+ 
different developers reporting the same bug. That will get their attention.

Tim Penner read your message and he is reading this message. But don’t expect 
him to do anything about it. That’s not his job. It is the job of every 4D 
developer to report bugs to 4D by opening a tech support case. And to refuse to 
close that tech support case, or allow it to auto close, until the bug is 
fixed. 

That’s my opinion.

Tim


Tim Nevels
Innovative Solutions
785-749-3444
timnev...@mac.com


**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John DeSoi via 4D_Tech]

Not the case here. Table is set to READ WRITE at the start of the process and 
never changed.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.



> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Chip Scheide <4d_o...@pghrepository.org> wrote:
> 
> one thing that bit me in earlier versions (not v16) is Read Only.
> A record is locked when it is loaded in read only, in a single user 
> system this might be an explanation.

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech]

one thing that bit me in earlier versions (not v16) is Read Only.
A record is locked when it is loaded in read only, in a single user 
system this might be an explanation.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 10:05:20 -0500, John DeSoi via 4D_Tech wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 19, 2017, at 7:33 PM, John DeSoi  wrote:
>> 
>> I still think there is a new bug in version 16, but I have not seen 
>> it happen again since upgrading to 16.2. This is a single user 
>> application with one process accessing the record. There is a 
>> trigger, but it just assigns one field and nothing else (no "fancy 
>> stuff"). 
> 
> I just encountered this in version 16.2 (Mac, single user merged 
> application). The Locked function returns true, but LOCKED BY has 
> empty values for everything. The record is only accessed by one 
> process and never becomes unlocked even though it is repeatedly 
> reloaded via subsequent queries.
> 
> John DeSoi, Ph.D.
> 
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **
---
Gas is for washing parts
Alcohol is for drinkin'
Nitromethane is for racing 
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John DeSoi via 4D_Tech]

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 7:33 PM, John DeSoi  wrote:
> 
> I still think there is a new bug in version 16, but I have not seen it happen 
> again since upgrading to 16.2. This is a single user application with one 
> process accessing the record. There is a trigger, but it just assigns one 
> field and nothing else (no "fancy stuff"). 

I just encountered this in version 16.2 (Mac, single user merged application). 
The Locked function returns true, but LOCKED BY has empty values for 
everything. The record is only accessed by one process and never becomes 
unlocked even though it is repeatedly reloaded via subsequent queries.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Alan Chan via 4D_Tech]

Hi Koen,

I think your case is very different and might be v16 issue as user was still on 
server list and you couldn't disconnet it.

The trigger issue (not actually an issue) I mentioned was the record was locked 
and the related user wasn't even on the server list.

Alan Chan

4D iNug Technical <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> writes:
>In the case I mentioned, there were no triggers involved. No fancy stuff 
>either. Just a record which is being automatically locked because it was 
>opened in an input form.
>But I don’t know how the user left the building…
>
>Koen

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Koen Van Hooreweghe via 4D_Tech]

In the case I mentioned, there were no triggers involved. No fancy stuff 
either. Just a record which is being automatically locked because it was opened 
in an input form.
But I don’t know how the user left the building…

Koen

> Op 19 sep. 2017, om 22:21 heeft Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> This is a great point. I wonder if any of the users reporting this problem 
> have triggers that are doing some “fancy stuff” that could be causing this. 




Compass bvba
Koen Van Hooreweghe
Kloosterstraat 65
9910 Knesselare
Belgium
tel +32 495 511.653

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John DeSoi via 4D_Tech]

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> If a record wasn't unloaded in trigger properly, the record would be locked 
>> even after the invoking client user left the system (no longer signed in). 
>> The only way is to restart the server.
> 
> This is a great point. I wonder if any of the users reporting this problem 
> have triggers that are doing some “fancy stuff” that could be causing this. 

I still think there is a new bug in version 16, but I have not seen it happen 
again since upgrading to 16.2. This is a single user application with one 
process accessing the record. There is a trigger, but it just assigns one field 
and nothing else (no "fancy stuff"). 

John DeSoi, Ph.D.

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

RE: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Stephen J. Orth via 4D_Tech]

Having to restart the Server is a completely unacceptable solution for a 
"production" system.  There needs to be a way for 4D, Developer, or 
Administrator to deal with this...

Also, am I the only one who thinks the "locked" information returned is 
inaccurate?

Steve

-Original Message-
From: 4D_Tech [mailto:4d_tech-boun...@lists.4d.com] On Behalf Of Tim Nevels via 
4D_Tech
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:22 PM
To: 4d_tech@lists.4d.com
Cc: Tim Nevels <timnev...@mac.com>
Subject: Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

This is a great point. I wonder if any of the users reporting this problem have 
triggers that are doing some “fancy stuff” that could be causing this. 

But even in this situation, I think 4D should try to deal with this. Maybe they 
could add some code to 4D Server that runs periodically like a “Janitor” 
routine that checks the list of locked record — I’m sure 4D Server keeps a list 
of this somewhere internally — and if it finds a locked record that is not 
linked to a currently connected user, it unlocks it. That would fix this issue 
and not require a 4D Server restart. 

Tim

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Tim Nevels via 4D_Tech]

On Sep 19, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Alan Chan wrote:

> If a record wasn't unloaded in trigger properly, the record would be locked 
> even after the invoking client user left the system (no longer signed in). 
> The only way is to restart the server.

This is a great point. I wonder if any of the users reporting this problem have 
triggers that are doing some “fancy stuff” that could be causing this. 

But even in this situation, I think 4D should try to deal with this. Maybe they 
could add some code to 4D Server that runs periodically like a “Janitor” 
routine that checks the list of locked record — I’m sure 4D Server keeps a list 
of this somewhere internally — and if it finds a locked record that is not 
linked to a currently connected user, it unlocks it. That would fix this issue 
and not require a 4D Server restart. 

Tim


Tim Nevels
Innovative Solutions
785-749-3444
timnev...@mac.com


**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Alan Chan via 4D_Tech]

If a record wasn't unloaded in trigger properly, the record would be locked 
even after the invoking client user left the system (no longer signed in). The 
only way is to restart the server.

Alan Chan

4D iNug Technical <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> writes:
>The client timeout will remove a dead user after that period of activity. In 
>these cases, the user isn't even showing in the list of connected users on the 
>server, yet 4D reports the lock in that user's name.
>
>It's pretty weird. I guess others have seen this before, but it's new to me. I 
>can understand a lock for a user that's still technically connected but 
>non-responsive (crashed, hanged, etc.) but not if the server isn't even 
>showing the user in the
>list.
>
>

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[npdennis via 4D_Tech]

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> The client timeout will remove a dead user after that period of activity. In 
> these cases, the user isn't even showing in the list of connected users on 
> the server, yet 4D reports the lock in that user's name.


When I saw this earlier, it was a server process that was hanging on to the 
records, not a client process. As soon as I was careful to set tables to read 
only and unload locked records in my server processes and "execute on server" 
methods my problem went away.

--
Neil Dennis
4D Developer since 1990


GreaText - Designing Software for the Way You Work
716 East 1850 N
North Ogden, UT 84414

mailto:npden...@greatext.com
http://www.greatext.com/




**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech]

The client timeout will remove a dead user after that period of activity. In 
these cases, the user isn't even showing in the list of connected users on the 
server, yet 4D reports the lock in that user's name.

It's pretty weird. I guess others have seen this before, but it's new to me. I 
can understand a lock for a user that's still technically connected but 
non-responsive (crashed, hanged, etc.) but not if the server isn't even showing 
the user in the list.

--
Jeffrey Kain
jeffrey.k...@gmail.com

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 10:00 AM, Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I am not on this version of 4D 15 or 16
> but what about the client time out?
> might this have an effect?

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech]

I am not on this version of 4D 15 or 16
but what about the client time out?
might this have an effect?

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:28:24 +0200, Koen Van Hooreweghe via 4D_Tech 
wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> FWIW. I had this once in one of the two sites running the same app. A 
> few days after converting from v13 to v16. One user and his processes 
> were still visible in the 4D admin window and there were two records 
> (from different tables) locked. The user was out of the office. No 
> way out. Processes could not be killed, user could not be 
> disconnected.
> The only solution was to shutdown and restart 4D Server.
> 
> I don’t know what happened. Probably the user did not log off 
> correctly, but nevertheless having to shut down 4D Server is kinda 
> drastical. One should be able to disconnect a user at any time and 
> thus free the locked records.
> 
> HTH
> Koen
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <
>> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com > wrote:
>> 
>>> Has anyone who uses v16 run across false record locks being reported?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compass bvba
> Koen Van Hooreweghe
> Kloosterstraat 65
> 9910 Knesselare
> Belgium
> tel +32 495 511.653
> 
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **
---
Gas is for washing parts
Alcohol is for drinkin'
Nitromethane is for racing 
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Koen Van Hooreweghe via 4D_Tech]

Hi Jeff,

FWIW. I had this once in one of the two sites running the same app. A few days 
after converting from v13 to v16. One user and his processes were still visible 
in the 4D admin window and there were two records (from different tables) 
locked. The user was out of the office. No way out. Processes could not be 
killed, user could not be disconnected.
The only solution was to shutdown and restart 4D Server.

I don’t know what happened. Probably the user did not log off correctly, but 
nevertheless having to shut down 4D Server is kinda drastical. One should be 
able to disconnect a user at any time and thus free the locked records.

HTH
Koen

> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <
> 4d_tech@lists.4d.com > wrote:
> 
>> Has anyone who uses v16 run across false record locks being reported?




Compass bvba
Koen Van Hooreweghe
Kloosterstraat 65
9910 Knesselare
Belgium
tel +32 495 511.653

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Kevin Abraham via 4D_Tech]

Jeffrey,

We have seen this in v13 (but I imagine it would work the same) any time a user 
has a record locked, for example in an Input Layout, and the Client crashes 
requiring a Ctl-Alt-Del. The lock on the record remains forever whether the 
User is logged in or not and only a restart of the Server can unlock the record.

Good Luck,
Kevin Abraham
Digital Retirement Solutions
kabra...@drs401k.com

On Sep 18, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
wrote:

> Has anyone who uses v16 run across false record locks being reported?
> 
> On two occasions now over the past 3 weeks, we've run across locked records 
> where 4D reports that the user locking the record is not even signed in to 
> 4D. 
> 
> Locked Attributes seems to be giving the same information that 4D's user mode 
> locked record dialog displays (which is good I guess), but since that user 
> isn't even connected to the server there's nothing that can be done to 
> resolve it, other than to restart the server.
> 
> Curious if anyone else has seen this?
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **


**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Charles Miller via 4D_Tech]

This has been a longstanding issue. When I first wrote Informed
RecordLock(tm) component in v11. Even after I put all tables in read only
mode, I could and did lock records using select with lock. Some remained
locked after process ended.

Regards

Chuck

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <
4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:

> Has anyone who uses v16 run across false record locks being reported?
>
> On two occasions now over the past 3 weeks, we've run across locked
> records where 4D reports that the user locking the record is not even
> signed in to 4D.
>
> Locked Attributes seems to be giving the same information that 4D's user
> mode locked record dialog displays (which is good I guess), but since that
> user isn't even connected to the server there's nothing that can be done to
> resolve it, other than to restart the server.
>
> Curious if anyone else has seen this?
> **
> 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
> FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
> Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
> Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
> Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
> **




-- 
-
 Chuck Miller Voice: (617) 739-0306 Fax: (617) 232-1064
 Informed Solutions, Inc.
 Brookline, MA 02446 USA Registered 4D Developer
   Providers of 4D, Sybase & SQL Server connectivity
  http://www.informed-solutions.com
-
This message and any attached documents contain information which may be
confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.  These materials are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this
transmission, you are hereby notified that any distribution, disclosure,
printing, copying, storage, modification or the taking of any action in
reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited.  Delivery of this
message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not
compromise or waive such confidentiality, privilege or exemption
from disclosure as to this communication.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Cannon Smith via 4D_Tech]

Good to know. Thanks.

--
Cannon.Smith
Synergy Farm Solutions Inc.
Hill Spring, AB Canada
403-626-3236




> On Sep 18, 2017, at 9:14 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Not in our case. The stored procedure that stopped running the other day 
> doesn't access or lock any records, it just calls NEW LOG FILE in a loop 
> (mirror backup).

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[John DeSoi via 4D_Tech]

Yes. In my case it is a single user merged application and in a long running 
"cron" process. No one else is using the database and no other process accessed 
the records. My error handler would randomly report the record was locked by 
process 0. I had to restart to fix it.

I don't think I have seen it in the last few weeks since upgrading from 16.1HF2 
to 16.2.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.



> On Sep 18, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone who uses v16 run across false record locks being reported?
> 
> On two occasions now over the past 3 weeks, we've run across locked records 
> where 4D reports that the user locking the record is not even signed in to 
> 4D. 
> 
> Locked Attributes seems to be giving the same information that 4D's user mode 
> locked record dialog displays (which is good I guess), but since that user 
> isn't even connected to the server there's nothing that can be done to 
> resolve it, other than to restart the server.
> 
> Curious if anyone else has seen this?

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech]

Not in our case. The stored procedure that stopped running the other day 
doesn't access or lock any records, it just calls NEW LOG FILE in a loop 
(mirror backup).

--
Jeffrey Kain
jeffrey.k...@gmail.com

> On Sep 18, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Cannon Smith via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Funny you should mention this. Just this morning I was thinking about the 
> frozen process issue some of us have been experiencing and wondering if it 
> could be a call to “Locked” that isn’t returning—just hanging. Does what you 
> are seeing with record locks happen to line up with this possibility at all?

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Cannon Smith via 4D_Tech]

Hi Jeff,

Funny you should mention this. Just this morning I was thinking about the 
frozen process issue some of us have been experiencing and wondering if it 
could be a call to “Locked” that isn’t returning—just hanging. Does what you 
are seeing with record locks happen to line up with this possibility at all?

--
Cannon.Smith
Synergy Farm Solutions Inc.
Hill Spring, AB Canada
403-626-3236




> On Sep 18, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone who uses v16 run across false record locks being reported?
> 
> On two occasions now over the past 3 weeks, we've run across locked records 
> where 4D reports that the user locking the record is not even signed in to 
> 4D. 
> 
> Locked Attributes seems to be giving the same information that 4D's user mode 
> locked record dialog displays (which is good I guess), but since that user 
> isn't even connected to the server there's nothing that can be done to 
> resolve it, other than to restart the server.
> 
> Curious if anyone else has seen this?

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

Re: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Jeffrey Kain via 4D_Tech]

Not in these particular tables. We've never seen this happen before until v16 
and now it's happened twice that we know of.

> On Sep 18, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Dennis, Neil  wrote:
> 
> I have not seen this, could it be that you use an execute on server and do 
> not unload the record when you are done?

**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**

RE: 4D v16.2 false record locks

[Dennis, Neil via 4D_Tech]

I have not seen this, could it be that you use an execute on server and do not 
unload the record when you are done?


Neil








--

Privacy Disclaimer: This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee you 
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please delete this email 
from your system and notify the sender immediately by replying to this email.  
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, 
copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this 
information is strictly prohibited.

The Alternative Investments division of UMB Fund Services provides a full range 
of services to hedge funds, funds of funds and private equity funds.  Any tax 
advice in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by 
a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (a) avoiding 
penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (b) promoting, marketing, or 
recommending to another party any matter addressed herein.
**
4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ:  http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html
Archive:  http://lists.4d.com/archives.html
Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech
Unsub:  mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com
**