Re: [U2] End of Month date routine

2011-12-08 Thread andy baum
Scratch that, should read things more carefully, obviously 2 hours sleep is not 
enough.


Cheers,

Andy




 From: andy baum andyb...@yahoo.co.uk
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org 
Sent: Thursday, 8 December 2011, 7:52
Subject: Re: [U2] End of Month date routine
 
Stuart,


You are getting the performance from the case statement by having  
     
      case mod(YEAR,4) ; LEAP.YEAR = @false 


first, unfortunately when using case, the order is important and this needs to 
go just before the case @true. In your example


     
case mod(YEAR,400); LEAP.YEAR = @false 

will never be happen as it will already have been picked up by the previous case

Cheers,
Andy




From: Boydell, Stuart stuart.boyd...@spotless.com.au
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org 
Sent: Thursday, 8 December 2011, 6:44
Subject: Re: [U2] End of Month date routine

On UV the vlist would indicate yes (the complete expression is processed) .

LEAP.YEAR = NOT(MOD(YEAR,4)) AND (NOT(MOD(YEAR,400)) OR MOD(YEAR,100))
00062 : 0F6 mod            YEAR 4  = $R1
0006A : 10E not            $R1  = $R2
00070 : 0F6 mod            YEAR 400  = $R3
00078 : 10E not            $R3  = $R4
0007E : 0F6 mod            YEAR 100  = $R5
00086 : 122 or             $R4 $R5  = $R6
0008E : 008 and            $R2 $R6  = LEAP.YEAR
00096 : 190 stop

I get minuscually better results using a case statement:

YEAR = oconv(THE.DATE, 'dy')
begin case
case mod(YEAR,4) ; LEAP.YEAR = @false
case mod(YEAR,100); LEAP.YEAR = @true
case mod(YEAR,400); LEAP.YEAR = @false
case @true ; LEAP.YEAR = @true
end case


-Original Message-
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org 
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Wjhonson
Sent: Thursday, 8 December 2011 15:02
To: andyb...@yahoo.co.uk; u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] End of Month date routine


Why couldn't you say


LEAP.YEAR = NOT(MOD(YEAR,4)) AND (NOT(MOD(YEAR,400)) OR MOD(YEAR,100))

Would the system process the whole line even on an initial finding of False ?









-Original Message-
From: andy baum andyb...@yahoo.co.uk
To: U2 Users List u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: [U2] End of Month date routine


Seem to have lost a bit of last reply which should have read


Ran Dan's test code on latest Windows PE version of Universe and got :-

9.788
1.558
1.474
3.412

Tried
NOT(MOD(YEAR,400)) OR(NOT(MOD(YEAR,4)) AND MOD(YEAR,100))) which took 2.181 
seconds but the fastest I could get was

LEAP.YEAR = NOT(MOD(YEAR,4))
IF LEAP.YEAR THEN
           LEAP.YEAR = (NOT(MOD(YEAR,400)) OR MOD(YEAR,100)) END

which took 1.423 seconds

Got the same trend, although different timings on our Solaris 10 box running 
Universe 10.3.6

Cheers,
Andy




From: Daniel McGrath dmcgr...@rocketsoftware.com
To: dgr...@dagconsulting.com dgr...@dagconsulting.com; U2 Users List 
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2011, 18:57
Subject: Re: [U2] End of Month date routine

I added the code to PasteBin so as to not flood here: 
http://pastebin.com/JMyqhFud

I did a few more than 100K and I cut the OCONV step out from all of them. I 
took the liberty to adjust Will's version to return correct results. The 
results I got, in order, was:

16.872
2.804
2.384
5.561

So, if you have a need to account for your milliseconds, the slightly optimized 
Wikipedia algorithm seems to be the fastest.

Interested to see if there are any better? (Or if I made any mistakes...)

Regards,
Dan

-Original Message-
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org 
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org]
On Behalf Of David A. Green
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:48 AM
To: 'U2 Users List'
Subject: Re: [U2] End of Month date routine

Who wants to take each of the Leap Year calculations and put them into 
different subroutines and loop 100K times and see which one is faster using 
profiling?

David A. Green
(480) 813-1725
DAG Consulting

___
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


___
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] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8

2011-12-08 Thread Tony Gravagno
It was confirmed that UOJ isn't going away, which is good for
legacy development.
But my whole point was that for new development we don't need it,
never did.

 From: Charles_Shaffer
 Tony, What you say is true, and those tools would be 
 great in the right situation.  But I am concerned 
 about the future of UOJ.  My understanding is that the 
 new Domino will allow jars to be directly accessed 
 from the Domino Designer.  Just want to make sure that 
 UOJ is not going to be deprecated.
 
 
 Tony said:
 There's no good reason for that condition to exist.  
 Rocket doesn't necessarily need to be the sole 
 provider of language bindings into the platform.

___
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users


Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8

2011-12-08 Thread Charles_Shaffer
Tony
It was confirmed that UOJ isn't going away, which is good for
legacy development.
But my whole point was that for new development we don't need it,
never did.

Maybe I am asking the wrong question.  Is there a better way to interface 
Domino 8.5 to Unidata than UOJ?

Charles Shaffer
Senior Analyst
NTN-Bower Corporation



From:   Tony Gravagno 3xk547...@sneakemail.com
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org, 
Date:   12/08/2011 03:32 PM
Subject:Re: [U2] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8
Sent by:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org



It was confirmed that UOJ isn't going away, which is good for
legacy development.
But my whole point was that for new development we don't need it,
never did.

 From: Charles_Shaffer
 Tony, What you say is true, and those tools would be 
 great in the right situation.  But I am concerned 
 about the future of UOJ.  My understanding is that the 
 new Domino will allow jars to be directly accessed 
 from the Domino Designer.  Just want to make sure that 
 UOJ is not going to be deprecated.
 
 
 Tony said:
 There's no good reason for that condition to exist. 
 Rocket doesn't necessarily need to be the sole 
 provider of language bindings into the platform.

___
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] Uniobjects for Java and Domino 8

2011-12-08 Thread Tony Gravagno
 From: Charles_Shaffer
 Maybe I am asking the wrong question.  Is there a 
 better way to interface Domino 8.5 to Unidata than UOJ?

IMO, UOJ probably is the best way.  In the absence of anything
approaching a IBM Domino Connector for U2, I'm thinking ODBC
via Easysoft might be the only other option.  (I wasn't reading
any Domino-centric posts to this thread, only the UOJ posts, so
maybe I missed something.)

___
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users