RE: Proc or Para
Old history now, but as a Pr1mate (as in used, not worked for), I never learnt (or even MET!) procs until extremely late in the day. Official support for procs appeared with INFORMATION 8.1, released probably about 1991 just before they went bust :-( It just WASN'T THERE on any system I ever worked with ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Proc or Para Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year proctologist myself allows me to support a wide variety of platforms. Many of my UD/UV/D3 clients, while having paragraphs and other newer additions available, still function with a lot of code that was inherited from earlier conversions. Oftentimes management many not be able to justify a re-write of code just because the language isn't today's flavor. Coming from Microdata since the 70's, you only had procs with procread/procwrite as a way to get fancy with PQ procs. PQN in 1979 offered more read/write and direct variable features but the other licenses were developing EXECUTE which, looking back, was the better tact. Still, i keep my proc skills sharpened as I still have to support it. Proc does have some pretty nifty features for such a simple command set. Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize it and i haven't seen it on any U2 systems. RPL, which predates this further never made it past the mid 1970's. Isn't it great to have choices. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: Results [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: Proc or Para L, Proc predates Pick BASIC as a programming language. The short answer (to my mind) is that Paragraph is an add-on to Access/English/AQL/Retrieve, but Proc is really a scripting language. If you need to automate procedures, tie complex programs into a batch, or do other heavy lifting, Proc is great. The problem that gets all these Proc haters on their soapbox isn't Proc, its when people use Proc for the wrong tasks (like Proc menus instead of parametric menus). Proc really is incredibily powerful and well worth knowing, but it shouldn't be used for 9-% of the tasks it is normally associated with in the Pick world. Personally, I rtarely use Paragraph because I need to port software. - Charles 'Proc is JCL on Steroids' Barouch -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Proc or Para
Think of PROC as a type of dos BAT file... Sure you could write programs to schedule things to happen one after the other, but it sure is easier to just create a BAT file, ain't it? AUTOEXEC.BAT? Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was a simple procedural tool. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell Sent: 05 February 2004 07:08 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Proc or Para Isn't it great to have choices. Choice, yeah sure; but um, why wouldn't you just write a program? ** 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 email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
SBClient on Windows XP
Can someone help? To access our main application which is written mainly in SB+ (text based only no GUI) we use SBClient. Since the advent of 32 Bit Operating systems (some time ago now) we have seen an extremely disproportionate amount of CPU resource being taken up by SBClient even just by typing a single key. Is this a setup issue (O/S or application), a fixed in the next release issue or a find another emulator issue??? I am currently running SBClient 4.5.3 (Build 84) on Windows XP Pro O/S (but the problem seems to be the same on all 32bit Platforms). Thanks in advance anyone who can help. Mike -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: SBClient on Windows XP
Title: RE: SBClient on Windows XP Mike, I think SBClient 5.2.4 is the earliest version supported for XP We found the 4. releases to be very cpu hungry.. but from about 5.0.5 they got better. We use 5.2.3 5.2.4 with no cpu issues. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Mike Farrant To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: 05/02/04 07:06 Subject: SBClient on Windows XP Can someone help? To access our main application which is written mainly in SB+ (text based only - no GUI) we use SBClient. Since the advent of 32 Bit Operating systems (some time ago now) we have seen an extremely disproportionate amount of CPU resource being taken up by SBClient even just by typing a single key. Is this a setup issue (O/S or application), a 'fixed in the next release' issue or a 'find another emulator' issue??? I am currently running SBClient 4.5.3 (Build 84) on Windows XP Pro O/S (but the problem seems to be the same on all 32bit Platforms). Thanks in advance anyone who can help. Mike -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Memo: Re: [UD] Determining if list exists
At 12:12 AM 02/05/2004, you wrote: [snipped] The same applies (here) with a BASIC program that : 0011 SENTENCE = \SELECT MD WITH F! RUBBISH\ 0012 EXECUTE SENTENCE CAPTURING JUNK RETURNING ERR In this case ERR = 0 if there's no items, not 401 under vanilla (R83, AP) Pick Unless.. Is there a UV Option (besides Pick Flavo*u*r) that gives back a 401?? Uh. No. Error messages in UV are generated from the SYS.MESSAGE file in a manner completely different (and incompatible with) Pick. The ERRMSG file within UV is there simply to support the STOPE/ABORTE BASIC commands. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Proc or Para
Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was a simple procedural tool. Wrong way round. Huh? I said Procs in the PQ form came before PQN's... Waz wrong wi' dat? The evolution was PQ to PQN ... From simple batch (step 1 to 2 to 3) we moved to labels (step 1 to 2 to (if a = b) then step 1 else step 3) Anyhows... Forgive incorrectnesses... :) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Proc or Para
And if it was not for Glen and Steve Buck who helped push for this inclusion, PI might never have had this as part of the core product. It did come to be a key piece of the product when PI+, PI/Open hit the market as we encountered a lot of old MD, PICK shops that we targeted to convert. What we found though is that unless you grew up with PROCs, most existing PI users did not embrace them once it became core. -Lance Glenn Herbert wrote: I was helping write that proc processor for Pr1me starting in 1986. In the conversions group we used to install it as an additional package (basically adding the BASIC code and cataloging it!) on sites converting to PI. The processor was still not IN PI until shortly after I left (just before the big downfall). I still have the master documentation set for the processor that I wrote for Tech Pubs. It's in a box somewhere. At 03:06 AM 02/05/2004, you wrote: Old history now, but as a Pr1mate (as in used, not worked for), I never learnt (or even MET!) procs until extremely late in the day. Official support for procs appeared with INFORMATION 8.1, released probably about 1991 just before they went bust :-( It just WASN'T THERE on any system I ever worked with ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Proc or Para Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year proctologist myself allows me to support a wide variety of platforms. Many of my UD/UV/D3 clients, while having paragraphs and other newer additions available, still function with a lot of code that was inherited from earlier conversions. Oftentimes management many not be able to justify a re-write of code just because the language isn't today's flavor. Coming from Microdata since the 70's, you only had procs with procread/procwrite as a way to get fancy with PQ procs. PQN in 1979 offered more read/write and direct variable features but the other licenses were developing EXECUTE which, looking back, was the better tact. Still, i keep my proc skills sharpened as I still have to support it. Proc does have some pretty nifty features for such a simple command set. Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize it and i haven't seen it on any U2 systems. RPL, which predates this further never made it past the mid 1970's. Isn't it great to have choices. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: Results [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: Proc or Para L, Proc predates Pick BASIC as a programming language. The short answer (to my mind) is that Paragraph is an add-on to Access/English/AQL/Retrieve, but Proc is really a scripting language. If you need to automate procedures, tie complex programs into a batch, or do other heavy lifting, Proc is great. The problem that gets all these Proc haters on their soapbox isn't Proc, its when people use Proc for the wrong tasks (like Proc menus instead of parametric menus). Proc really is incredibily powerful and well worth knowing, but it shouldn't be used for 9-% of the tasks it is normally associated with in the Pick world. Personally, I rtarely use Paragraph because I need to port software. - Charles 'Proc is JCL on Steroids' Barouch -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Migrating U2 data
Title: Message I have to agree here. We did the same identical conversion back several years ago from UV 7 on SCO, to the second UV release available on NT (don't remember the exact version number). All we did was TAR the SCO database, copy it through the network, and then UNTAR it on the NT side. Everything worked great. Kept correct path names and everything. The only major problems we had were things that were written to use Unix commands or Unix subsystem. My 2 cents... Glenn W. Paschal PasTech LLC Computer Consulting ph. (931) 526-9631 fx. (931) 526-9678 email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] web. www.pastech.net -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony YoungmanSent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:48 AMTo: U2 Users Discussion ListSubject: RE: Migrating U2 data WRONG WRONG WRONG !!! Sorry for shouting here, but I noticed the OP said he was currently running UV/SCO, and wanted to switch to UV/NT. So, with the very important caveat that "can UV 10 cope with UV 7 data?", all he needs do is an os-level copy of the data file from one system to the other. It REALLY IS that simple. I'm running UV9/NT, UV9/SCO, and UV10/linux. *ALL* the data files are binary compatible across all three systems! Couple of notes for the OP (and others :-) 1) OP is short for "original poster" 2) fnuxi is for converting between endian-ness. You do not need it when moving between processors that are the same endian, so going from SCO (intel) to NT (intel) is fine. The OS is irrelevant as to whether you need fnuxi. You would need fnuxi to go between UV/linux and UV/linux if one was on Intel and the other on z800/power. 3) UniData and UniVerse are two different products made (originally) by two different companies. The OP only has UV so UD is irrelevant here :-) Cheers, Wol From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan BatemanSent: 05 February 2004 01:06To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'Subject: RE: Migrating U2 data I have done this a number of times and all I did was use the fnuxi command in uv/bin directory. (1) Copy Unix accounts to the windows server. (2) Enter following command in the directory containing the unix dataat the Windows command prompt: dir/b | fnuxi This lists each file name and passes it to the fnuxi command to convert to the correct format for the Windows platform. Alan Bateman EVOLUTION Software Services Pty Ltd solutions for changing needs 4-10 Bridge Street PYMBLE NSW 2073 Phone : (02) 9497 4340 Mobile : (0417) 685 246 Fax : (02) 9497 4370 E-mail : abateman@evoss.com.au Web : www.evoss.com.auThe information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may be confidential and/or privileged.Unauthorised use or reproduction (including storage or re-distribution) is prohibited. Except as required at law, Evolution Software Services Pty Ltd does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Cyndi CalvinSent: Thursday, 5 February 2004 7:23 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Migrating U2 data Any pointers on what document explains how to move data from an old old UNIX U2 system to a new 10.0 Windows system? Thanks. Cyndi ***This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system.Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.*** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: UniDebugger in SB+
Javed- afraid CTRL T isn't doing anything for me. Colin- I'm not clear what exactly Dual session is about. I can click Compile, Catalog, or Run, and they work fine. However, the whole point of UniDebugger (from my perspective) is that it gives VB-like control over running code. I made some progress by changing the login script to only get to the unix shell. However, there is still some kind of hiccup where I click Step Into, then I have to click on the Dual Session and press Enter to make things move forward. Is there something I need to set differently? TIA, David Beahm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David; I use UniDebugger in a UD6/SB5.2/Win2K system. However, I don't use it on the regular SB code as that has to go through our version control s/w. I use it on stand-alone (usually conversion) unibasic routines. I use the host view when connecting/logging in until I get down to the command line in the account I'm working in (not the TCL prompt in SB). I did script part of the login but I move around into various accounts so I didn't do all of it. I've never tried the dual-session mode. I found the easiest way to get into the debugger is to put a debug into the program then compile and run it from the UniDebugger menu. Then it will stop at the debug statement and you can do all of the steps to move around the code, put variables into the watch stack etc. Hopefully, this will get you a little farther... -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Serial Connectivity
Title: Message what about using a serial - ethernet - wirelessbridge/// wireless router - server since your only talking about a scale, speed isn't an issue, go with the cheaper 802.11b Once it's all hooked, you establish a link from UV - scale via a socket connection George -Original Message-From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:38 AMTo: 'U2 Users Discussion List'Subject: Serial Connectivity We are considering connecting a scale [used to weigh parts] having an RS-232 port to our HP Unix, UniVerse-based ERP system. Digiappears to have the best unit to go from serial to ethernet. While we do have an HP serial port "hub", I would rather not wire a serial home-run from the server to the scale. Thus, I seek suggestions on voodoo to best make a connection between say UniBasic and/or UniObjects and a serial or ethernet device. --Bill -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Serial Connectivity
Title: Message http://www.sena.com/products/by_name/hd_super/ Might be of some value? george -Original Message-From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:38 AMTo: 'U2 Users Discussion List'Subject: Serial Connectivity We are considering connecting a scale [used to weigh parts] having an RS-232 port to our HP Unix, UniVerse-based ERP system. Digiappears to have the best unit to go from serial to ethernet. While we do have an HP serial port "hub", I would rather not wire a serial home-run from the server to the scale. Thus, I seek suggestions on voodoo to best make a connection between say UniBasic and/or UniObjects and a serial or ethernet device. --Bill -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Migrating U2 data
Cyndi, If your talking about converting Unidata (Unix) to Universe (W2k) then read on. We converted from Unidata on an HP Unix box to W2K running UV 10. It wasn't that difficult to do. Get a hold of IBMs Universe Technical Bulletin (Part # 74-0108) Converting Unidata Files to Universe Files. I created a Unix script to ftp all the data files to the W2K box. Once there I then ran IBM's utility, udtconv. rudy Message: 10 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:23:28 -0800 From: Cyndi Calvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Migrating U2 data To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Any pointers on what document explains how to move data from an old old UNIX U2 system to a new 10.0 Windows system? Thanks. Cyndi -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: EVAL and LIKE
I tried it. It didn't seem to work but maybe I didn't do it right. I did include the [1] in there. I'm a newbie, was I not suppose to. I'm also running this in a UNIQUERY statement at the colon prompt. Would that have anything to do with it not running properly. Thanks for whatever light you can shed on my case. kevin At 11:24 AM 2/5/2004 -0500, you wrote: Perhaps this will help: EVAL IF (FIELD.NAME[1] = * OR INDEX(FIELD.NAME,'Incomplete',1)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 -Original Message- From: Kevin Michaelsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EVAL and LIKE I'm trying to get this statement to work: Basically I'm trying to count the number of records that have a FIELD.NAME that has an * or an Incomplete. TOTAL EVAL IF(WITH FIELD.NAME LIKE '...*','Incomplete') THEN COUNTER ELSE 0 Thanks for any assistance. Kevin -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Thanks - Was [UV] Resize - Dynamic or 64 bit?
Thanks Ray and all of those who replied to my questions. I wound up choosing the 64bit option. For the record, I am in favor of using distributed files. I have many situations where I use them. However, I really didn't have the time to come up with a good algorithm to achieve even distribution. The file is made up of 50 transaction chunks of inventory history. One item can have numerous records. It looks like Internal Part# = sequential number assigned at item creation time. Field 4 of the master record is a counter of history records. So, if part# 1, field 4 = 2, I would have... Key = 1*1 1 Stockroom ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 2 Trans Qty ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 3 Trans Uom ] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) ... 25 Tran Type] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) Key = 1*2 1 Stockroom ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 2 Trans Qty ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 3 Trans Uom ] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) ... 25 Tran Type] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) When I have time, I will be changing to something like 15 or 20 transactions per record to decrease the record sizes. I am also going to be changing to a distributed file so that maintenance becomes less time consuming. Ray, you mentioned changing to a separation of 32 to get around performance hits when accessing the file. I thought that the maximum recommended separation was 16? Has this changed? Thanks again to all who responded in my moment of need. Scott Dynamic files are also subject to the 2GB limit. The internals of static hashed and dynamic hashed files are exactly the same, except for the location of secondary group buffers. The decision about growing and shrinking the number of primary group buffers in dynamic files is external to the file structure, but requires that the secondary group buffers are in a separate file (OVER.30) so that the primary group buffers (in DATA.30) can increase. So dynamic files are not a solution to the 2GB problem. You may have been confusing them with distributed files. A distibuted file is primarily a logical entity that acts as an umbrella, containing one or more (static or dynamic) hashed files called part files. The individual part files can be accessed as usual. To define a distributed file there must be some attribute of the key in the part files that can be used to make the decision about which part file that record belongs in. This may require a bit of design work, and reallocation of records to correct part files before defining the distributed file. You can have as many part files as you desire in a distributed file. However, each part file remains limited to 2GB if 32-bit addressing remains in place. The individual part files are managed (inspected, RESIZE, etc) as usual. Hashed files with 64-bit addressing can go over the 2GB limit. Yoy can convert your hashed file to 64-bit addressing with RESIZE (RESIZE filename * * * USING dirpath). The theoretical upper limit is approximately 19 million TB, but some operating systems restrict you to 1 million TB. Applying 64-bit addressing does not absolve you from the responsibility of periodic RESIZE of hashed files, and much larger files will clearly take longer. You will also find that UVFIXFILE does not support files with 64-bit addressing; you will need to get your head around the new file fixing tool. With records that size I'd also be looking at the separation figure. It's a really awkward record size for storing in hashed files. You need a large separation (perhaps 32); otherwise many - most - of your records will be treated as oversized, incurring an I/O penalty when accessing them. For Dynamic files, the best you can achieve is 4KB groups, which mitigates against this choice. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:28:16 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (u2-Users) Subject: [UV] Resize - Dynamic or 64 bit? Hi all, UV 9.6 / HPUX 11 I have a hashed file approaching the 2 gig limit. I need some help determining whether to go with the dynamic or 64 bit option. Here are some specifics. The file is our inventory history file which is, as you can imagine, used heavily. Approximately 85 percent of the records are 4k in size. I have always frowned upon using dynamic files because they seem to be slower compared to hashed. Maybe because I have never attempted to figure out how to tune them. Can anyone give me the pros/cons of using the 64 bit versus dynamic option? Thanks in advance, Scott ___ u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: EVAL and LIKE
Title: Message If all you need is justa count of records in a file with a particular field containing the value "*" or "Incomplete": COUNT file WITH field = '*' 'Incomplete' -Original Message-From: Kevin Michaelsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:16 AMTo: U2 Users Discussion ListSubject: RE: EVAL and LIKEI tried it. It didn't seem to work but maybe I didn't do it right. I did include the [1] in there. I'm a newbie, was I not suppose to. I'm also running this in a UNIQUERY statement at the colon prompt. Would that have anything to do with it not running properly. Thanks for whatever light you can shed on my case.kevinAt 11:24 AM 2/5/2004 -0500, you wrote: Perhaps this will help:EVAL "IF (FIELD.NAME[1] = "*" OR INDEX(FIELD.NAME,'Incomplete',1)) THEN 1 ELSE 0" -Original Message- From: Kevin Michaelsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EVAL and LIKE I'm trying to get this statement to work: Basically I'm trying to count the number of records that have a FIELD.NAME that has an "*" or an "Incomplete". TOTAL EVAL "IF(WITH FIELD.NAME LIKE "'...*','Incomplete'") THEN COUNTER ELSE 0" Thanks for any assistance. Kevin-- u2-users mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: EVAL and LIKE
Title: Message Kevin: A problem is the use of the double-quote more than once - this will fail. Also, in your original below you have the following clause using LIKE: LIKE "'...*' which will not work in the way you want. Because the ...* is within the single quotes, the LIKE statement will try to match on exactly that - it will seek fields that are exactlythree periods and an asterisk!Actually, if you just want to count records, try this COUNTFILE.NAMEWITH FIELD.NAMELIKE "...'*'..." OR WITHFIELD.NAME LIKE "...'Incomplete'..." Note that the specific strings you want to seek are inside the single quotes, but the triple-dots are outside those but contained inside the double quotes. (In pi/openyou don't need the double quotes at all). Harold Oaks Sr. Analyst/Programmer Clark County, WA -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin MichaelsenSent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:16 AMTo: U2 Users Discussion ListSubject: RE: EVAL and LIKEI tried it. It didn't seem to work but maybe I didn't do it right. I did include the [1] in there. I'm a newbie, was I not suppose to. I'm also running this in a UNIQUERY statement at the colon prompt. Would that have anything to do with it not running properly. Thanks for whatever light you can shed on my case.kevinAt 11:24 AM 2/5/2004 -0500, you wrote: Perhaps this will help:EVAL "IF (FIELD.NAME[1] = "*" OR INDEX(FIELD.NAME,'Incomplete',1)) THEN 1 ELSE 0" -Original Message- From: Kevin Michaelsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EVAL and LIKE I'm trying to get this statement to work: Basically I'm trying to count the number of records that have a FIELD.NAME that has an "*" or an "Incomplete". TOTAL EVAL "IF(WITH FIELD.NAME LIKE "'...*','Incomplete'") THEN COUNTER ELSE 0" Thanks for any assistance. Kevin-- u2-users mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Serial Connectivity
Title: Message I just got a digiport server running on Universe/Linux. We have a door/people counter on it and an RF mux. We used cat5 basic wiring with rj45 to db25 converters. Pins 2, 3, 7 (tx, rx, sig gnd) are all that were needed. If the digi driver installs properly and such it should be pretty simple. Anthony Dzikiewicz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:38 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: Serial Connectivity We are considering connecting a scale [used to weigh parts] having an RS-232 port to our HP Unix, UniVerse-based ERP system. Digiappears to have the best unit to go from serial to ethernet. While we do have an HP serial port hub, I would rather not wire a serial home-run from the server to the scale. Thus, I seek suggestions on voodoo to best make a connection between say UniBasic and/or UniObjects and a serial or ethernet device. --Bill -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [UD] Determining if list exists
Good Heavens, Mark, I think you kind of missed the tone of my post. :-) I see you sent it just before midnight, you must have been tired. I suppose after rereading my post in the light of a new day, you will see that I understand why the code I copied from a prior post was poorly written. (Don't believe in your wildest dreams, I would have written something like that.) And, as you are rereading my posting, you will also come to understand that the second proc was a joke based upon the poor understanding of procs by so many programmers. If you got the joke, you must understand something about proc. After 21 years in PICK, I know PQ procs and how to use them to best advantage. I have to admit PQN procs I have to look up syntax. I must admit, as much as I like procs, I don't use them much anymore. Now if only UniData would support F-correlatives... (Mark, that is another joke. :-) ) Take care, Bruce M Neylon Health Care Management Group Mark Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/04/2004 11:52 PM Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List To:U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Re: [UD] Determining if list exists Your proc example doesn't need the P after the STON in line 3. The reasons you have the STON, H and P(x) on lines 7,8,9 is twofold. The first reason is that in a typical GET-LIST/LIST pairing, your list statement could exceed the maximum size of the Secondary Output buffer (STON without the H and P). That required Secondary Output buffer extensions of H which needed to be properly placed and when changes were made, you had to recalculate where they belonged. Using the STON, H, P then the HLIST put the entire LIST statement into the Primary Output buffer which is seemingly limitless. Like a paragraph, you were executing 2 consecutive statements. The downside is that if the preceeding SELECT doesn't yield any items or the GET-LIST comes up empty, the HLIST will process your report against the entire file. Thus the IF E=401 concept was introduced to validate the active list. That psycho couldn't possibly have programmed that on purpose. I've seen some excessive use of STOFF/STON pairs, ie STOFF after a P when it comes automatically. (Like RI then S1. Duh, RI implies S1). The fact that the psycho alternated their two sentence's words in consecutive statements was either to hide some code or fool around. my 1 cent -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Thanks - Was [UV] Resize - Dynamic or 64 bit?
Separation is pretty much unlimited under uniVerse. However from a practical perspective, you should try to tailor your groupsize to something that would accommodate your data. For example if your AVERAGE record size is 8k in length, you will have records both larger than 8k and smaller than 8k. One thing you wish to avoid in universe is large record fragmentation. If your record will not fit into a single group, uniVerse will allocate a disk block on the end of the file to store the majority of the data. What is in excess is stored in it's proper primary group with flags and pointers indicating where the rest of the data is stored. This will force multiple physical disk reads and disk head movement (logical reads are performed from disk cache and are not as expensive). So, since the disk subsystem is the slowest part of your physical computer system, it's best to avoid physical disk reads. A Separation of 32 (16k groups) will ensure that you avoid any oversized blocks. The original reason for choosing smaller separations was based on disk block sizes on older unix systems. Older unix systems used to have either a 1k (exl316, 320, 325) or 2k (pyramid) block read. So on a Pyramid, all unix reads were performed as if a separation of 4 existed (even if your file was using a Separation of 1 like some PICK migrated systems). By the way, a larger separation with smaller records would result in excessive CPU usage as uniVerse, at the group level, effectivly performs a string search for the key requested. A Larger separation with small records would result in more searching for the record. Currently, systems like HP and AIX will a unix disk block size of 64k, but this can be tailored in the kernel. NT by default uses a read blocksize of 4k under NTFS partitions. Regards, Ray Daignault - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:22 AM Subject: Re: Thanks - Was [UV] Resize - Dynamic or 64 bit? Thanks Ray and all of those who replied to my questions. I wound up choosing the 64bit option. For the record, I am in favor of using distributed files. I have many situations where I use them. However, I really didn't have the time to come up with a good algorithm to achieve even distribution. The file is made up of 50 transaction chunks of inventory history. One item can have numerous records. It looks like Internal Part# = sequential number assigned at item creation time. Field 4 of the master record is a counter of history records. So, if part# 1, field 4 = 2, I would have... Key = 1*1 1 Stockroom ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 2 Trans Qty ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 3 Trans Uom ] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) ... 25 Tran Type] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) Key = 1*2 1 Stockroom ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 2 Trans Qty ] (MV associated to 1, Max of 50) 3 Trans Uom ] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) ... 25 Tran Type] (MV Associated to 1, Max of 50) When I have time, I will be changing to something like 15 or 20 transactions per record to decrease the record sizes. I am also going to be changing to a distributed file so that maintenance becomes less time consuming. Ray, you mentioned changing to a separation of 32 to get around performance hits when accessing the file. I thought that the maximum recommended separation was 16? Has this changed? Thanks again to all who responded in my moment of need. snip With records that size I'd also be looking at the separation figure. It's a really awkward record size for storing in hashed files. You need a large separation (perhaps 32); otherwise many - most - of your records will be treated as oversized, incurring an I/O penalty when accessing them. For Dynamic files, the best you can achieve is 4KB groups, which mitigates against this choice. snip -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: UniDebugger
That didn't make sense, did it. No wonder I wasn't getting any responses. I even had my cup 'o coffee. I'm leaving now... -Original Message- From: Shawn Waldie Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:55 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: UniDebugger Is there a setting in UniDebugger that will allow me to edit and keep open a file (program or PA) without locking it - so I can test it in the DC pane without first closing the editor? I could do this with HyperEdit, so I'm assuming I can do it with dbugger. TIA Shawn -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Serial Connectivity
Title: Message I don't know about objections, haven't used it. George -Original Message-From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 2:33 PMTo: 'U2 Users Discussion List'Subject: RE: Serial Connectivity Is a "socket connection" accomplished via UniObjects ? Thanks for the advisroy on the wireless Sena device. Itcosts $399 versus $160 for the Digi unit. Bill -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of George GallenSent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:47 AMTo: 'U2 Users Discussion List'Subject: RE: Serial Connectivity what about using a serial - ethernet - wirelessbridge/// wireless router - server since your only talking about a scale, speed isn't an issue, go with the cheaper 802.11b Once it's all hooked, you establish a link from UV - scale via a socket connection George -Original Message-From: Brutzman, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:38 AMTo: 'U2 Users Discussion List'Subject: Serial Connectivity We are considering connecting a scale [used to weigh parts] having an RS-232 port to our HP Unix, UniVerse-based ERP system. Digiappears to have the best unit to go from serial to ethernet. While we do have an HP serial port "hub", I would rather not wire a serial home-run from the server to the scale. Thus, I seek suggestions on voodoo to best make a connection between say UniBasic and/or UniObjects and a serial or ethernet device. --Bill -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[UV/AIX] gzip data to file?
[UV10/AIX] We have a requirement to output (10MB +/- ascii) data into zipped files, the files then being put on a web server for collection. I'm just wondering what the best approach to this might be? How would or have other people approached this? I'm trying to avoid writing the data until after it has been zipped. Rough ideas being... sh - c 'uv prog | gzip -c9 file' Print to a script? Write to a device (or pipe?)? Output to a java widget? Other? Regards, Stuart Boydell ** 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 email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
