Re: [U2] Mixed Case UV Basic Programming Standards.
A case of you preferring SOMETIMESLOWER perhaps? Stuart -Original Message- I like all upper case ... I don't like all lower case because there is no quick and easy way to tell if an author meant sometimes lower or sometime slower when writing sometimeslower. ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please reply to this e-mail to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery and then delete it and your reply. It is your responsibility to check this email and any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on. Spotless collects information about you to provide and market our services. For information about use, disclosure and access, see our privacy policy at http://www.spotless.com.au Please consider our environment before printing this email. ** ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Mixed Case UV Basic Programming Standards.
Isn't it hard enough programming without having to find SOmeTimesSlower or SomeTImessLower or SometImesSLOwer or SomeTIMESslower or SOMETimesslower or sometimesslower or sometImesslower? I usually go with SOME.TIMES.SLOWER So often that one day just before lunch I thought to myself (and this isn't a joke) Maybe I'll go to TACO.BELL today... -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org]on Behalf Of Boydell, Stuart Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:02 AM To: louiebergsa...@gmail.com; U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Mixed Case UV Basic Programming Standards. A case of you preferring SOMETIMESLOWER perhaps? Stuart -Original Message- I like all upper case ... I don't like all lower case because there is no quick and easy way to tell if an author meant sometimes lower or sometime slower when writing sometimeslower. ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please reply to this e-mail to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery and then delete it and your reply. It is your responsibility to check this email and any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on. Spotless collects information about you to provide and market our services. For information about use, disclosure and access, see our privacy policy at http://www.spotless.com.au Please consider our environment before printing this email. ** ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions
I can't believe the comments on this - it is released as a favour to a closed user group - you - and the rules are . one of which is you use ie 6 or 7. Comeon it aint hard ! ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions
I know the software I am writing doesn't yet have all of the features it needs to have. I figure that this volunteer-written app (again, eager to see it) simply doesn't have every feature either. That is no shame. I don't know if there is an intent to deploy it for Chrome, FF, Safari, etc, I'm guessing there is an intent to have it usable in IE 8 at some point. If the intent is never to add the feature of being generally usable in a browser-other-than-IE environment, that would still put it in a category with many other s/w applications out there. That a piece of software to be used by a relatively small group of people for an infrequently needed (by each person) purpose has a specific, proprietary run-time environment should not be a shocker to any of us, I would think. That run-time environment is widely available, even if not on my box (with 6 web browsers installed right now). That a piece of deployable software could be written by volunteers in relatively short order is great. Even if I would rather see developers have toolsets and frameworks that provide cross-browser support, that can be quite expensive to write and support. It sounds like you picked a strategy and have a deployable and usable software app. If we want to use it,we need to have the run-time environment for it. If I needed to run this app right now, I'm sure I could install a viable run-time for it, just as people have been doing since PC's came along. So, congrats for getting this far with it. I'll suggest that whenever you give the URL you call it an IE-app, which you might have done, just to set expectations right so that we don't think it is a web app (which is what people usually give URLs for). I suspect that is the cause of this discussion here right now. Some people have not seen URLs given for apps that were not written to be web apps. Not every application must be a web app. I see no problem with this particular app for BB having a specific run-time environment rather than being able to run in any browsers I currently have installed (5 right now on this box, FF3.5, IE8, Opera 10beta2, Chrome 2, SeaMonkey). I had intended to keep IE7 loaded and add IE8, but somehow missed the opportunity when loading IE8 to install it as a separate browser. For our app development, I'm testing pages in IE 6 on another machine and I'm ignoring IE7 right now, hoping that if a page works in IE6 and IE8, then it will also work in IE7 (yeah, I know better than to think that, but I'm still going to ignore IE7 until the last minute, there just aren't enough hours in the day) Cheers! --dawn On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Glen B batch...@bellsouth.net wrote: Kevin King wrote: Having been on the board in a past life - for what little I did contribute - I can say that the U2UG board and volunteers work hard and should be commended for their efforts. That said, can we all please stay focused on the results without getting personal about it? I've yet to get personal about anything relating to this. However, I'm free to voice my opinion on the subject since public inquiries were requested. I'm all for the project, provided the masses can actually use it. Personally, I think this BB thing is an excellent idea and I'm looking forward to taking a peek at it. I also think that we as an industry need to be more forward thinking in adopting web technology, and I'm pleased that the board is making strong moves in that direction. (And hey, for this worldwide group, it just makes good sense.) Kevin, we both know the current state of the industry. It is moving forward (slowly), but is this vendor-specific forum of comments really going to affect the rest of the industry? It's great for IBM and for U2 and I'm all for it. I have no interest in seeing any volunteer project fail, as I've seen plenty of my own get buried in the bit bucket from a lack of interest and/or lack of vision. We need to be realistic here, though. Chrome, Safari, Opera, and Fire Fox are just as popular as IE and are the preferred or only browser available on many desktops. Luckily, there is a fix for Fire Fox. What about all of the Mac users, though? Chrome is growing in popularity as well, so it can not be ignored. Look at the iPhone's explosion. It has Safari, not IE. Would it not be nice to be able to submit bug reports and feature requests from your iPhone, waiting at the airport? The same can be said for all web-capable mobile devices that don't run some mobile version of Windows, which is a large percentage. This browser incompatibility issue rings oddly familiar, reminiscent of applications throughout history that only worked properly on Wyse50's or some other CRT. Anyone remember PROF on the old Reality systems? Early releases of that product were the poster child for terminal incompatibility (pun intended). And you know what? We worked through all that. Yeah, we ended up using emulation software that could handle
Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions
I think this project has a lot of potential. Kudos to those who are giving of their time to participate. I don't know if there is an intent to deploy it for Chrome, FF, Safari, etc, I'm guessing there is an intent to have it usable in IE 8 at some point. IE 6 7 are sunset. You may consider looking at the browser market share stats by following the link below. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10303614-92.html?part=rsstag=feedsubj=Webware That a piece of deployable software could be written by volunteers in relatively short order is great. Even if I would rather see developers have toolsets and frameworks that provide cross-browser support, that can be quite expensive to write and support. After reading some of the posts by those who are working on this project it sounds like managing the project is the most difficult aspect. If that is the case perhaps a lesson can be gleaned from the open source community where developers from all over the world collaborate on a project. A few specific projects that come to mind are: -The linux kernel and various distributions (I use Ubuntu and Fedora). -Mozilla (firefox thunderbird) -Netbeans (Java IDE) -MySql -Chromium (google chrome) There also are the thousands of projects on sourceforge.net. All of these have many developers working together with source code control and formal bug reporting/assignment. Best regards. Jeff ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions
u2-users-ow...@listserver.u2ug.org said the following on 8/23/2009 8:59 AM: The message's content type was not explicitly allowed Subject: Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions From: Bill Haskett wphask...@advantos.net Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:59:51 -0700 To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Jeff: Sounds like you, or someone else, would like to volunteer to set up the development communications environment. :-)I too appreciate the work of these volunteers. I am using DesignBais to convert our somewhat large enterprise application. It is a long process that takes quite a bit of time but it looks nice and the least of my problems is the IE requirement. I exclusively use Firefox with the IE Tabs plug-in installed. Occasionally I have to be cautious about a Firefox upgrade but anyone who uses plug-ins knows this. I've been using this IE plug-in since FF 2 and it works great. So, anyone with a Windows machine can use Firefox. If one is running a Mac one needs Windows installed in parallels (or whatever) to use FF. Since we're all developers I'd think at least 90 - 95% of us use Windows (I didn't say everyone!). This means a vast majority of us can use IE or Firefox. I'm guessing IE and FF have at least 80% market share so I don't believe what the BB committee is doing is unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. DesignBais is significantly easier to develop in than anything else. It uses straight U2 tools (U2 UO) effectively. Changes can be done easily and the installation and configuration issues can usually be resolved quickly. This is completely unlike most other technologies where multiple people need to be involved and getting the most simple change takes a lot more time and patience than most volunteers have. Besides, I suspect this small application was written using the W3C standards and should work with everything shortly. In addition, I suspect the IE8 issues will be resolved shortly too. Bill Jeff Powell said the following on 8/23/2009 7:00 AM: I think this project has a lot of potential. Kudos to those who are giving of their time to participate. I don't know if there is an intent to deploy it for Chrome, FF, Safari, etc, I'm guessing there is an intent to have it usable in IE 8 at some point. IE 6 7 are sunset. You may consider looking at the browser market share stats by following the link below. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10303614-92.html?part=rsstag=feedsubj=Webware That a piece of deployable software could be written by volunteers in relatively short order is great. Even if I would rather see developers have toolsets and frameworks that provide cross-browser support, that can be quite expensive to write and support. After reading some of the posts by those who are working on this project it sounds like managing the project is the most difficult aspect. If that is the case perhaps a lesson can be gleaned from the open source community where developers from all over the world collaborate on a project. A few specific projects that come to mind are: -The linux kernel and various distributions (I use Ubuntu and Fedora). -Mozilla (firefox thunderbird) -Netbeans (Java IDE) -MySql -Chromium (google chrome) There also are the thousands of projects on sourceforge.net. All of these have many developers working together with source code control and formal bug reporting/assignment. Best regards. Jeff ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions
I'm working on it and will hopefully have something to report in the next few days. Bill Haskett wrote: u2-users-ow...@listserver.u2ug.org said the following on 8/23/2009 8:59 AM: The message's content type was not explicitly allowed Subject: Re: [U2] Better and Better Application - Launching today Friday 8/21/09 -- Browser instructions From: Bill Haskett wphask...@advantos.net Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:59:51 -0700 To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Jeff: Sounds like you, or someone else, would like to volunteer to set up the development communications environment. :-)I too appreciate the work of these volunteers. I am using DesignBais to convert our somewhat large enterprise application. It is a long process that takes quite a bit of time but it looks nice and the least of my problems is the IE requirement. I exclusively use Firefox with the IE Tabs plug-in installed. Occasionally I have to be cautious about a Firefox upgrade but anyone who uses plug-ins knows this. I've been using this IE plug-in since FF 2 and it works great. So, anyone with a Windows machine can use Firefox. If one is running a Mac one needs Windows installed in parallels (or whatever) to use FF. Since we're all developers I'd think at least 90 - 95% of us use Windows (I didn't say everyone!). This means a vast majority of us can use IE or Firefox. I'm guessing IE and FF have at least 80% market share so I don't believe what the BB committee is doing is unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. DesignBais is significantly easier to develop in than anything else. It uses straight U2 tools (U2 UO) effectively. Changes can be done easily and the installation and configuration issues can usually be resolved quickly. This is completely unlike most other technologies where multiple people need to be involved and getting the most simple change takes a lot more time and patience than most volunteers have. Besides, I suspect this small application was written using the W3C standards and should work with everything shortly. In addition, I suspect the IE8 issues will be resolved shortly too. Bill Jeff Powell said the following on 8/23/2009 7:00 AM: I think this project has a lot of potential. Kudos to those who are giving of their time to participate. I don't know if there is an intent to deploy it for Chrome, FF, Safari, etc, I'm guessing there is an intent to have it usable in IE 8 at some point. IE 6 7 are sunset. You may consider looking at the browser market share stats by following the link below. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10303614-92.html?part=rsstag=feedsubj=Webware That a piece of deployable software could be written by volunteers in relatively short order is great. Even if I would rather see developers have toolsets and frameworks that provide cross-browser support, that can be quite expensive to write and support. After reading some of the posts by those who are working on this project it sounds like managing the project is the most difficult aspect. If that is the case perhaps a lesson can be gleaned from the open source community where developers from all over the world collaborate on a project. A few specific projects that come to mind are: -The linux kernel and various distributions (I use Ubuntu and Fedora). -Mozilla (firefox thunderbird) -Netbeans (Java IDE) -MySql -Chromium (google chrome) There also are the thousands of projects on sourceforge.net. All of these have many developers working together with source code control and formal bug reporting/assignment. Best regards. Jeff ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] UD: Executing small part of subroutine code once from dictionary call
Bill, Yes, it sounds like a UV:UD difference, yes, a UD deficiency. Unless UD-basic or maybe a switch in the VOC's V-item, or something else that can alter the default behaviour. I know there is something akin to uv flavours that affects how things run, ECL-type is it? See if the UD doc shows some way to do what the UV documentation says, which is as follows: In UV-basic there are compiler options: $OPTIONS EXEC.EQ.PERF compiles the EXECUTE statement as the PERFORM statement. $OPTIONS PERF.EQ.EXEC compiles the PERFORM statement as the EXECUTE statement. $OPTIONS PIOPEN.EXECUTEEXECUTE behaves similarly to the way it does on PI/open systems. The default behaviour: * PERFORM: The commands are executed in the same environment as the BASIC program that called them; that is, unnamed common variables, @variables, and in-line prompts retain their values, and select lists and the DATA stack remain active. If these values change, the new values are passed back to the calling program. * EXECUTE creates a new environment for the executed command. This new environment is initialized with the values of the current prompt, current printer state, Break key counter, the values of inline prompts, KEYEDITs, KETRAPs, and KEYEXITs. If any of these values change in the new environment, the changes are not passed back to the calling environment. In the new environment, stacked @variables are either initialized to 0 or set to reflect the new environment. Nonstacked @variables are shared between the EXECUTE and calling environments. @date, @time are stacked. There is an appendix that lists all of them. Maybe a UD guru will jump in here. cds Charles: When I run a command from our TCL shell's prompt the command is executed. Thus the query is executed from a BASIC program. When I list the data calculated in the virtual attribute subroutine (an I-descriptor), the @DATE and @TIME value are static. When I run the query from real ECL the date/time are reset. So, in UD @DATE and @TIME aren't reset in a called child process. When I create a program that PERFORMs the query then run the program from our TCL shell (the query's executed from BASIC) the @DATE and @TIME don't change either. So it seems there is nothing I can do in UD to alter these two @ variables as long as I'm running from BASIC. Thus, a called subroutine from a virtual attribute can't be initialized at the beginning of the query. Wouldn't this seem like a deficiency to you? Thanks, Bill ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
