UniData Profiling
Somebody the other day said that if we all asked IBM (nicely) we might be able to get UniData-type profiling available on UniVerse... I sent a message to U2AskUs and got back a snotty (sorry Jackie!) reply The appropriate way to request an enhancement is to raise it with your support organization. A business case always helps. Business case? I have a legacy app that has been worked on by numerous programmers over ten years, and is mildly constipated. I have a 4 cpu server that's puffing its last, and I find that there's a way to identify and destroy (ok, fix up) the wee offenders, and to get this I have, in my abundant free time, to supply a business case??? IBM, baby, I need speed! I need efficiency! I need profiling! Is that close enough? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
U2UG Contract
Hi all, Firstly, thanks to Cliff for all his work over the years. I guess that most of us are looking to move to the U2UG site. I started off down that path this morning but, being a careful sort of person, I read the terms and conditions. Clause 7a worries me. I have discussed this briefly with our legal advisors who said that we shouldn't agree to it without clarification. So what is clause 7a?... 7. Submission of Content on this Web Site. By providing any Content to our web site: (a) you agree to grant to us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license (including any moral rights or other necessary rights) to use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, distribute, perform, promote, archive, translate, and to create derivative works and compilations, in whole or in part. Such license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed; My non-legal mind looks at this and reads into it that once I have submitted a posting to the site, I give away all rights to everything I have done and all my future work that may have any connection with what I have posted. I'm not even certain that the connection is necessary! Any views out there before we all (possibly) donate our life's work to IBM? Martin Phillips Ladybridge Systems 17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton NN4 6DB +44-(0)1604-709200 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
My other, !!!MAJOR!!! concern with this is the loss of the medium of mail. This is actually probably quite a serious loss for non-USians :-( (Plus it's the only practical medium at work :-( Forum software assumes easy access to a fast, cheap internet pipe. None of the fora I have seen is conducive (to my mind) to a good, in-depth conversation. And, to put it bluntly, I PREFER to work off-line. I know I'm often sloppy :-) but working in fora means I'm also rushed. And I get put off by pages that grow and start to crawl (or get chopped up so I can't find what I'm looking for...). Plus, there's the time difference. How do I help someone stateside or down-under if our access times only overlap by an hour? With the list, it just happens that we notice the other person is around. With a forum, it's chance that mostly never happens :-( Obviously, as part of the u2ug board :-) I look at the fora, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that losing the oliver lists means I will migrate back to cdp for the most part, not to u2ug.org. Not that I think that would be a bad thing - consolidating the MV world back to cdp is something I'm very pro. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, Clif has done us a wonderful service, and this is really meant as a back-handed compliment :-) the lists WILL be sorely missed. Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Phillips Sent: 29 March 2004 10:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U2UG Contract Hi all, Firstly, thanks to Cliff for all his work over the years. I guess that most of us are looking to move to the U2UG site. I started off down that path this morning but, being a careful sort of person, I read the terms and conditions. Clause 7a worries me. I have discussed this briefly with our legal advisors who said that we shouldn't agree to it without clarification. So what is clause 7a?... 7. Submission of Content on this Web Site. By providing any Content to our web site: (a) you agree to grant to us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license (including any moral rights or other necessary rights) to use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, distribute, perform, promote, archive, translate, and to create derivative works and compilations, in whole or in part. Such license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed; My non-legal mind looks at this and reads into it that once I have submitted a posting to the site, I give away all rights to everything I have done and all my future work that may have any connection with what I have posted. I'm not even certain that the connection is necessary! Any views out there before we all (possibly) donate our life's work to IBM? Martin Phillips Ladybridge Systems 17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton NN4 6DB +44-(0)1604-709200 -- 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: U2UG Contract
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Youngman Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 19:16 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: U2UG Contract SNIP - consolidating the MV world back to cdp is something I'm very pro. SNIP As a relative new list-user could you please let us know what 'cdp' is? Thanks Rainer -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
news:comp.databases.pick Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gromansperg Sent: 29 March 2004 10:38 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Youngman Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 19:16 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: U2UG Contract SNIP - consolidating the MV world back to cdp is something I'm very pro. SNIP As a relative new list-user could you please let us know what 'cdp' is? Thanks Rainer -- 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: The lists are closing
Cliff, We whose lists are about to die, salute you. It's been a great service - you should be held up as a shining example to moderators everywhere in promoting the best blend of discussion, humour and debate amongst a very informative list. More than that, you have made us all into a (not always united, but what the hell) community. I'll miss picking through the 700+ emails when I get back from holidays, and I'm sure my productivity will increase as a result ! but what I will mostly miss is the feeling of being part of an immediate, entertaining and switch-on online community. Brian -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: VB / SQL questions
Just to add, And if they clash with SQL keywords like DATE, USER or STATUS. So it's just generally safer to enforce them, as you never know what keywords are likely to be added in the future. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Hiscock Sent: 26 March 2004 18:20 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: VB / SQL questions Can someone tell me why I need INSERT INTO test([field1], field2 instead of INSERT INTO test(field1, field2 Brackets are required around field and file names if they contain spaces or other non-alphanumeric characters. Larry Hiscock Western Computer Services http://www.wcs-corp.com -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users This email was checked by MessageLabs SkyScan before entering Microgen. This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
I suggest we take over comp.databases.pick or fire up something new on usenet -- I agree that web-based discussion groups tend to suck majorly. Matti -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony Youngman Sent: 29 March 2004 10:16 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: U2UG Contract My other, !!!MAJOR!!! concern with this is the loss of the medium of mail. This is actually probably quite a serious loss for non-USians :-( (Plus it's the only practical medium at work :-( -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2UG Contract
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:38:07 +1000, Rainer Gromansperg wrote: snip As a relative new list-user could you please let us know what 'cdp' is? Newsgroup: Comp.Databases.Pick -- Allen Egerton [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
Hey, Wol, wot's cdp? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
Yeah I agree, forums are a pain - A new mailing list would be my prefered choice.. If I had the bandwidth I would set it up.. Raymond de Bourbon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett Sent: 29 March 2004 13:06 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract What chances of oliver.com (or IBM paying Clif to continue?) continuing to host said wonderful list? Email-style works for me - we're not allowed to sit on the net at work, and besides off-line allows one to think, to collate all the replies, to build mini-databases of worthy posts. Forum? Hmmm... No high speed connection, no time, just not going to get there. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
What are the bandwidth requirements to service the lists? -Original Message- From: Raymond de Bourbon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 March 2004 13:20 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract Yeah I agree, forums are a pain - A new mailing list would be my prefered choice.. If I had the bandwidth I would set it up.. Raymond de Bourbon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Bartlett Sent: 29 March 2004 13:06 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract What chances of oliver.com (or IBM paying Clif to continue?) continuing to host said wonderful list? Email-style works for me - we're not allowed to sit on the net at work, and besides off-line allows one to think, to collate all the replies, to build mini-databases of worthy posts. Forum? Hmmm... No high speed connection, no time, just not going to get there. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. Any unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: The lists are closing
British Humour in the morning ain't it great? Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 05:36AM Cliff, We whose lists are about to die, salute you. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
sbsolutions rbsolutions are on yahoo groups.. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sbsolutions you can select individual emails, digests or no email, and read on the website.. maybe a u2solutions? -Original Message- From: Raymond de Bourbon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 March 2004 13:20 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract Yeah I agree, forums are a pain - A new mailing list would be my prefered choice.. If I had the bandwidth I would set it up.. Raymond de Bourbon -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: SB+ Information
For what it's worth I'm writing a trigger-based solution in-house. Progress has stalled for the mo' for a lack of time, but basically it's as follows: The RC means Revision Control Two files: RC.PROJECTS -stores a description, creation author, date, time last change author date time put live author, date, time detail keys RC.PROJECT.DTL File Name Item Key The full item LOWER(d), stored on one attribute Event type, eg insert, update, delete One Trigger Program: Updates the master last change, and detail key Adds a record to detail file Trigger is added to every dictionary file by creating a VOC pointer directly to the DICT as if it were a file in it's own right, eg F G:\accounts\source\D_TEMP DICT.DICT That's as far as I've got, but plans are to: A) Create a trigger that keeps an index system for Type 1 / 19 files such that any additions / removals via the operating system, eg windows explorer, are monitored. B) A program is required to extract all details from the detail file and copy each into the right place in live. C) The users want to ultimately have a rollback facility, so any changes put live will first have to store the existing live records. This may help you to create one of your own, or you could always wait til mine gets on the road... [snip] For example, how does one stick a bunch of changes together and then migrate them from a test environment to a live one? It's a small site, so they can't afford a full-scale package like Susan's. I would like to set something up for them. Thanks, Keith Johnson 'tm'ing the post name space -- 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 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2UG Contract
Cliff, I would like to thank you for being a selfless and non-partisan moderator as well as an apparent workaholic all these years, supporting the needs of the Universe/Unidata user base as well as the incredibly diverse whimsey found within the ranks of your loosely coupled band of angels. I am truly saddened to see the transition of this forum from one of folk-art to a structured forum where the genius of those offering their wisdom and well thought out (or sometimes merely inspired) solutions, will thereafter become the intellectual properties of IBM. I heartily agree with Martin Phillips, that I would think twice and consult our legal advisors before posting anything (perhaps even a link to another site) to the IBM forum. It appears that the legal language would allow IBM to: use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, distribute, perform, promote, archive, translate, and to create derivative works and compilations, in whole or in part. Such license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed ... perhaps even in cases where a link to another site was provided. I am saddened to see that the 60's are over and that 1984 is indeed upon us. comp.databases.pick would certainly welcome anyone willing to post. There is certainly a large group of active posters with a diverse set of skills and experience that would be happy to interact with the Universe/Unidata population. I for one am certainly in favor of a large, united front for all of us involved with a non-normalized first firm, nested, post-relational database and all of it's 19 +/- variants. Lee Bacall, President Binary Star Development Corporation http://www.binarystar.com Phone: +1 (954) 791-8575 Cell: +1 (954) 937-8989 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [UV] Fault type 4
Basically, it means that you've hit a SIGILL, an illegal instruction signal, during the execution of the BASIC program, at address 5004. If that part of the error message is consistent (the address 5004), you can determine WHERE in the program it is failing by looking at the VLIST listing. I'd suggest contacting IBM support, as this represents some internal failure that you need to have assessed and corrected. It may be a known issue that already has a fix. Dave At 07:36 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: We have a problem with a piece of code that we have been debugging all day so far with no progress. A transaction process runs through the same bit of code several times without a problem, then for no 'apparent' reason (I guess there is one there some-where) the programme kicks up with: Abnormal Termination of UniVerse. Fault type is 4. Layer type is BASIC run machine Fault occurred in BASIC program prog name at address 5004. Can anyone tell me what this fault means - if anything? We have re-compiled the code, checked all the data files for corruptions and thrown it into debug - unfortunately because we cannot re-create the problem consistently, it may take hours still to find the exact place where it crashes. Any help would be appreciated... Thanks in advance, Mike -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users David T. Meeks || All my life I'm taken by surprise Architect, Technology Office || I'm someone's waste of time Ascential Software || Now I walk a balanced line [EMAIL PROTECTED] || and step into tomorrow - IQ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2UG Contract
Cliff, THANK YOU for all your years of service for the list. It's been great. Now, a question for everyone. Is the U2UG an IBM sponsored web forum that retains all the info? If so, I'm not going to be there very long... Thanks for any info on this. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2UG Contract
U2UG.org is a not sponsored by IBM, it's an independent non-profit organization. Donald Verhagen 1690 S Congress Avenue, Suite 210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delray Beach, FL 33445 USA Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc. Voice Phone: 561.454.3592 Senior Programmer Fax Phone: 561.454.3640 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9:12:39 AM 03/29/2004 Cliff, THANK YOU for all your years of service for the list. It's been great. Now, a question for everyone. Is the U2UG an IBM sponsored web forum that retains all the info? If so, I'm not going to be there very long... Thanks for any info on this. -- 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: U2UG Contract
It would give the U2UG.org organization rights *not* IBM, they are seperate from each other. Don Verhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8:58:04 AM 03/29/2004 [snipped..] I heartily agree with Martin Phillips, that I would think twice and consult our legal advisors before posting anything (perhaps even a link to another site) to the IBM forum. It appears that the legal language would allow IBM to: use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, distribute, perform, promote, archive, translate, and to create derivative works and compilations, in whole or in part. Such license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed [snipped] Lee Bacall, President Binary Star Development Corporation http://www.binarystar.com Phone: +1 (954) 791-8575 Cell: +1 (954) 937-8989 -- 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
ESC for OKIDATA
Anyone know what I equate ESC to for starting commands to an OKI 321? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: The lists are closing
..Yes I'll see you, I'll see you on the other side... - Ozzy Osbourne -Original Message- From: Brian Leach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:36 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: The lists are closing Cliff, We whose lists are about to die, salute you. It's been a great service - you should be held up as a shining example to moderators everywhere in promoting the best blend of discussion, humour and debate amongst a very informative list. More than that, you have made us all into a (not always united, but what the hell) community. I'll miss picking through the 700+ emails when I get back from holidays, and I'm sure my productivity will increase as a result ! but what I will mostly miss is the feeling of being part of an immediate, entertaining and switch-on online community. Brian -- 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: @WL ESC for OKIDATA
The escape (or ESC) is CHAR(27) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ray Buchner Sent: 29 March 2004 15:25 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: @WL ESC for OKIDATA Anyone know what I equate ESC to for starting commands to an OKI 321? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18/03/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: ESC for OKIDATA
Use CHAR(27) Gary Eppel Cerner Corp. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Buchner Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:25 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: ESC for OKIDATA Anyone know what I equate ESC to for starting commands to an OKI 321? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at (+1) (816)221-1024. -- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: The lists are closing
Ye'll tak the high road and I'll tak the low road ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Burwell, Edward Sent: 29 March 2004 15:35 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: The lists are closing ..Yes I'll see you, I'll see you on the other side... - Ozzy Osbourne -Original Message- From: Brian Leach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:36 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: The lists are closing Cliff, We whose lists are about to die, salute you. It's been a great service - you should be held up as a shining example to moderators everywhere in promoting the best blend of discussion, humour and debate amongst a very informative list. More than that, you have made us all into a (not always united, but what the hell) community. I'll miss picking through the 700+ emails when I get back from holidays, and I'm sure my productivity will increase as a result ! but what I will mostly miss is the feeling of being part of an immediate, entertaining and switch-on online community. Brian -- 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: The lists are closing
I have a simple-minded idea that may increase the value of the U2UG website and prevent us from loosing the huge amount of already accumulated knowledge that resides in this list. Would it be possible to transfer the posts to the list to the website? I know that there may be some legal wrangling and space considerations to deal with but I for one would hate to loose the knowledge that has been generated by this list. Dave Graham Storis Management Systems, Inc. (954) 725-3655 Ext. 102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Burwell, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:35 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: The lists are closing ..Yes I'll see you, I'll see you on the other side... - Ozzy Osbourne -Original Message- From: Brian Leach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:36 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: The lists are closing Cliff, We whose lists are about to die, salute you. It's been a great service - you should be held up as a shining example to moderators everywhere in promoting the best blend of discussion, humour and debate amongst a very informative list. More than that, you have made us all into a (not always united, but what the hell) community. I'll miss picking through the 700+ emails when I get back from holidays, and I'm sure my productivity will increase as a result ! but what I will mostly miss is the feeling of being part of an immediate, entertaining and switch-on online community. Brian -- 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: The lists are closing
I have a simple-minded idea that may increase the value of the U2UG website and prevent us from loosing the huge amount of already accumulated knowledge that resides in this list. Would it be possible to transfer the posts to the list tothe website? I know that there may be some legal wrangling and space considerations to deal with but I for one wouldhate to loose the knowledge that has been generated by this list. Glad you asked that - I was thinking the same thing - or wondering where the archives would be held! -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: OKI Code 39 BarCode
I don't have any info in my Oki 321 manual on using bar codes. Sorry Gary -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Buchner Posted At: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:43 AM Posted To: Informix-mv Conversation: OKI Code 39 BarCode Subject: OKI Code 39 BarCode I'm have little documentation for my OKI's and am trying to print a Code 39 Bar Code on my pick tickets that contains the pick ticket number. That is the ID in the below example. What I have is: ESC DEL B 10 :ID Is this correct? It does not seem to be functioning. -Ray -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at (+1) (816)221-1024. -- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: SB error
This would tell me that you have two programs running: Session 1 locks Record A Session 2 locks Record B Session 1 WANTS to lock Record B, and holds, awaiting the lock release Session 2 NOW Wants to lock Record A - if this happens, DEADLOCKS occurs - neither program will ever be able to progress. The system detects this, and kills Session 2 'for the good of all' - used to be 'in the old days' you'd just have two sessions sitting there forever Your best way to prevent Deadlocks is to ensure programs ALL lock files in the same order. In this example, Session 1's program locked A then B, while Session 2's propgram locked B, then A. That's a deadlock waiting to happen. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kafsat taiyus Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:26 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: SB error Hi, In a Unidata 5.2 SB+ plus environment running on Tru64 UNIX we are occasionally receiving following error. Fatal: deadlock will occur if this request of lock wait in the queue. File name: /file/NAME, inum: 57907, dev: -251488945, key: 136445950 Do anyone know why is this happening and how to fix it? Regards, Kafsat Taiyus This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose, store, copy or take any action in reliance on it or them. If you have received this message in error, please tell us by reply email (or telephone + 61 (0) 3 9274 9100) and delete all copies on your system. Any opinion, advice or information in this email is not necessarily that of the owners or officers of this company. Please advise us immediately if you or your employer do not consent to email for messages of this type. Retail Decisions has taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment to this email has been swept for viruses. However, we cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Please note that communications sent by or to any person through our computer system may be viewed by other Retail Decisions employees or officers strictly in accordance with law. -- 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
What is going to replace this list?
Clif, Thank you for being such a good host, it has been a pleasure. I have belonged to this list (off and on as jobs changed) from the Mike O'Rear days and it will feel like a club has broken up. I have registered 3 times on the U2UG web site but have never gotten anything from the site. Is there going to be a list such as this one? If not then we have lost a valuable resource. Most days I don't have the time to go surfing the net so going to the site to check up on the latest info isn't going to cut it. I have learned more than you can imagine from this list and you can imagine just how much information that can be over the last 14 years. I would like to go on but like I said this is about as much time as I have to write an email at one shot. Looks like a great group is going to break up. Jerry Banker -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: The lists are closing
Or maybe there could be a way for us to download them in a zipped format? Probably too much data though huh? BTW, I too want to pay my respects to Clif for hosting the list. I have learned so much just by reading through other peoples problems/experiences and by the direct responses to my own problems. Thanks to all of you for being such a wonderful resource for me. There have been many times over the past 5 years that I have been here that people have been kind enough to bail me out in my hour of need. Many thanks to you Clif and to all who have helped me out s much! I have a simple-minded idea that may increase the value of the U2UG website and prevent us from loosing the huge amount of already accumulated knowledge that resides in this list. Would it be possible to transfer the posts to the list tothe website? I know that there may be some legal wrangling and space considerations to deal with but I for one wouldhate to loose the knowledge that has been generated by this list. Glad you asked that - I was thinking the same thing - or wondering where the archives would be held! -- 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: The lists are closing
The archives for the lists (which go back to the mid-90's) would remain for now at http://www.indexinfocus.com. But I don't yet see a way to go forward on our site archiving the IBM web content so they'd be static. We do plan real soon now to add other content. Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? How can we avoid then having two separate, disconnected places for information -- the list and the U2UG forums? At this point in the lifecycle of the U2 products, the user group is very, very important. We need to make sure there are lots of squeaking wheels in the discussion threads. I ask this because we are looking at the technical issues of rehosting the lists here. But I agree with Clif in his reasons for shutting them down. Lee On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David Wolverton wrote: I have a simple-minded idea that may increase the value of the U2UG website and prevent us from loosing the huge amount of already accumulated knowledge that resides in this list. Would it be possible to transfer the posts to the list tothe website? I know that there may be some legal wrangling and space considerations to deal with but I for one wouldhate to loose the knowledge that has been generated by this list. Glad you asked that - I was thinking the same thing - or wondering where the archives would be held! -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Lee J. Leitner, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.leitner.org/~leitnerl The world can only be grasped by action, not by contemplation. The hand is the cutting edge of the mind. -- Jacob Bronowski V.13.0 --- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. Here at Nebula RD we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading partners use. Tony Joe Eugene wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe 1) Check again... one of IBM's partners is Epicore http://www.epicor.com/www/ which is using a Unidata database and XML technology in several of their products. 3) Our company has two divisions one on Oracle and one on Unidata. The Unidata side has two programmers compared to the 8 on the Oracle side to do the same thing.and we create great stuff and THEY have to try to follow us!! Total cost of an Oracle update cost more that our whole system cost from start to finish!! Just a few comments Marlene [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/28/2004 7:24:04 PM PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing David, As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment. I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Best of luck Jeff, however I will point out the obvious, what is your definition of modern? I would have thought the good old relational databases have been around since before pick anyway? 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Ritchie Sent: Monday, 29 March 2004 8:03 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing Thanks for the memories Cliff :) Sorry to hear the lists are closing, but what the heck time and tide, work committments etc. As some one who is shortly to be ex mv, and moving into the more modern technologies l will decline the offer to join, but wish the site all the best. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Moderator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 27 March 2004 7:14 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The lists are closing Dear Friends: After 10+ years of either hosting or supporting the info-prime, info-unidata, info-vmark, info-informix, and u2-users etc lists, I have decided to shut down the list server. u2-users and u2-community will cease to exist as of 1 April 2004. IBM is officially supporting the efforts of the new U2UG.org group. (Yes. I am a member of the establishing Board of that group. So this is not a coup or Sour Grapes!) If you check out the forums that have been set up, I think you will will see that they cover everything anyone has asked for over the years in this group. I *really* want to encourage ALL of you to come over the the www.u2ug.org site and support this effort. This is *exactly* what many of you on this list have wanted over the years. If Not Now, When? Almost ten years on my Watch. How many years before that on Mike O'Rear's Watch? In the Net World, this has been a Hell of a good run. (I just
RE: The lists are closing
I would argue that the lists should continue. With some employers offering e-mail, but not web-access to their employees, those employees would be able to contribute to an e-mail list, but not a forum. Steve Wagner At 11:02 AM 3/29/04 -0500, you wrote: The archives for the lists (which go back to the mid-90's) would remain for now at http://www.indexinfocus.com. But I don't yet see a way to go forward on our site archiving the IBM web content so they'd be static. We do plan real soon now to add other content. Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? How can we avoid then having two separate, disconnected places for information -- the list and the U2UG forums? At this point in the lifecycle of the U2 products, the user group is very, very important. We need to make sure there are lots of squeaking wheels in the discussion threads. I ask this because we are looking at the technical issues of rehosting the lists here. But I agree with Clif in his reasons for shutting them down. Lee snip prior message -- Steven M Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cary, North Carolina, United States of America -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: U2UG Contract
While Yahoo groups hasn't been the best or most consistent host in the world, there is no plan at the time to move our sbsolutions folks over to u2ug. Not to be a stick in the mud, but things are working really well over there and there's no compelling reason to move at this point in time. Besides, the moderation is simple, every user can elect either a web or email experience, and it's just easy. And the ads haven't gotten too heinous (yet). --Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.PrecisOnline.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lee, Andy Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:22 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract sbsolutions rbsolutions are on yahoo groups.. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sbsolutions you can select individual emails, digests or no email, and read on the website.. maybe a u2solutions? -Original Message- From: Raymond de Bourbon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 March 2004 13:20 To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: U2UG Contract Yeah I agree, forums are a pain - A new mailing list would be my prefered choice.. If I had the bandwidth I would set it up.. Raymond de Bourbon -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). If your so dead set against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or DB2. Send us another note in 6 months and let us know what you spent on consultants and extra hardware to do this. Thanks, Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. Here at Nebula RD we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading partners use. Tony Joe Eugene wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
At the risk of being rude (which I don't really mind all that much). Your comments simply verify my initial suspicion that you are quite ignorant of the structure and usage of the Universe environment. Anyone who would characterize the Universe database as flat file is either A) an idiot or B) clueless. And the use PICK to read through it??? What? I also suspect that you suffer fronm a common malady: If all you know how to use is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. Your arguments are nonsensical, your logic is missing and in general the internet has a term for those who post irritating comments about a subject on that subject's newsgroup which this list certainly resembles. We call them trolls -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:07 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. Here at Nebula RD we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading partners use. Tony Joe Eugene wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. 1. UV has
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing David, As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment. I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's early
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Any Software that can do a TON of Stuff is MUCH More Complex! Is SAP easy to Learn? UV/PICK doesn't even use Strong Data Typing (Integer/Float/String)... Half the complexity and Performance is Lost there... Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Donald Kibbey Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). If your so dead set against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or DB2. Send us another note in 6 months and let us know what you spent on consultants and extra hardware to do this. Thanks, Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's counter-productive to get into one-upmanship against relational products and other staples of the IT world, so I'll just close by saying all of these products are as good as the skills of the people using them. Here at Nebula RD we'll be happy to help you connect your app to anything you want, including SAP, Peoplesoft, DB2, or whatever else you or your trading partners use. Tony Joe
RE: The lists are closing
I just tested the subscribe button on the Universe Forum and I am definitely receiving new posts as email. Unfortunately, to reply to the posting you have to do so on the webpage (there is a link provided in the email) :-( So it's half-way there in terms of the comments/wishes I've seen so far in this discussion. Would be nice if we could reply directly to the forum using a normal email reply. Gary Eppel Cerner Corp. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wendy Smoak Posted At: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:23 AM Posted To: Informix-mv Conversation: The lists are closing Subject: RE: The lists are closing Lee Leitner wrote: The archives for the lists (which go back to the mid-90's) would remain for now at http://www.indexinfocus.com. Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? How can we avoid then having two separate, disconnected places for information -- the list and the U2UG forums? For me it has to be email or newsgroup. I will not be as active in a forum that requires using a web browser as I will in an email list or newgroup. However, it looks like you can subscribe to the forums on u2ug.org, which I hope means that forum postings will arrive via email. If that's true, then if you have only email access at work, you should still be able to participate once you join and subscribe. Thanks, Clif, for hosting these lists. Without them, I never would have gotten all of my UniObjects for Java stuff working, nor been able to help so many other people get started. -- Wendy Smoak Application Systems Analyst, Sr. ASU IA Information Resources Management -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at (+1) (816)221-1024. -- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
This is a Constructive Argument... Don't you have an argument to prove that UV is efficient rather than getting to Personal Stuff.! I have done my homework on Stress Testing Applications... If you can prove UV is efficient... DO IT! Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Schasny Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:20 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing At the risk of being rude (which I don't really mind all that much). Your comments simply verify my initial suspicion that you are quite ignorant of the structure and usage of the Universe environment. Anyone who would characterize the Universe database as flat file is either A) an idiot or B) clueless. And the use PICK to read through it??? What? I also suspect that you suffer fronm a common malady: If all you know how to use is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. Your arguments are nonsensical, your logic is missing and in general the internet has a term for those who post irritating comments about a subject on that subject's newsgroup which this list certainly resembles. We call them trolls -Original Message- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:07 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
I can't speak for your in house guys, but here, we do warehousing on the UniVerse machine. It does support it quite well. We Use the UniVerse machine to feed data to a couple of SQL server based solutions (they are third party vertical apps). How does the data get from UniVerse to SQL Server? By way of an xml data packet, in real time. I've found over the years that if you want/need to do it with UniVerse, it can be done. You might have to perform an upgrade to the latest version, but it's a well supported product. Read your manuals and see for yourself. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:27AM We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Funny, I find the fact that I don't have to deal with how long a string is to be a feature. Same with floats, inegers etc. You really do not understand anything about Pick or UniVerse. You should put down the keyboard and read a bit. No more replies on this please. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:33AM Any Software that can do a TON of Stuff is MUCH More Complex! Is SAP easy to Learn? UV/PICK doesn't even use Strong Data Typing (Integer/Float/String)... Half the complexity and Performance is Lost there... Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Donald Kibbey Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). If your so dead set against UV, then switch your site to Oracle or DB2. Send us another note in 6 months and let us know what you spent on consultants and extra hardware to do this. Thanks, Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 11:07AM I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. I don't think its hard to prove that UV is Much IN-Efficient than other advanced DataBase Technologies. Here is a simple test... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology I have only worked at one place that used UV, am Not interested in learning PICK Or UV. In the current state...UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Do you think SAP can integrate with the above Environment? SAP Integrates with all Major RDBMS well am aware UV.. can be treated as a RDBMS... but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... if that's the case why Not just use Oracle Or DB2.. which are highly efficient and Ton of resources out there to depend on. with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either I have done Java integration with UV/RedBack and am familiar with UNIJ...thats all I want to know about the details of UV Java! I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I personally like Java...but I still do appreciate MS.NET C# cause of some of its advanced techniques and performance stuff. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:30 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing I can't say if MV is slow or inefficient as far as database handling compared to various relational DBMS environments. Since the tests themselves (TPC, etc) are biased because they themselves are defined based on relational constructs, I suspect we'll never get real numbers that we can all agree on. Aside from that you're way off. Stating that UV people use PICK and that UV is not supported by SAP or Peoplesoft tells me you aren't very familiar with this technology. Saying MV is slow and then advocating a translation to Java tells me you aren't too familiar with Java either. Saying Pick doesn't support advanced level computing is simply wrong, and so are a couple of your other claims. But I think we understand and can agree with your point that MV isn't mainstream. Pick-based DBMS products are very capable with regard to communications. We can connect an MV app to anything. Connectivity methods aren't always mainstream but the claims of little/NO support and not compatible are incorrect. Non-MV products incorporate tools that we can use just as easily. Remember that programming and connectivity are not natively done within most other DBMS environments, they use outside tools to connect into a DBMS too. So in a sense, because we have tools inside and outside of our environments, we have a bit more to work with than they do - that is, BASIC can be considered a built-on RAD language compared to the inadequacies of stored procedures. It's
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe, I shouldn't even dignify this crap with a reply, but anyway ... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. We've written complex web applications against UniVerse with several hundred permanently active users for local government systems (not just simple e-commerce or dynamic web). And they perform excellently, thank you. UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Then you're not using it correctly are you? Which puts you in no position to comment. Don't blame the technology for your incompetence in not making the correct use of it. MVDB is designed for embedded processing. Record level writes that don't have the overhead of a SQL layer. Complex processing managed locally to the database, without having to add external business rule layers. Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets. In other words, comparing UV and an RDBMS are comparing chalk and cheese. They do different jobs. Try to use UV in the same way as Oracle and don't be surprised if it won't perform. Try to use Oracle in the same way as UV and the same thing happens. It doesn't work. Strangely if I tried to drive a formula 1 car around here it won't perform either. It would just break under the conditions. You need a 4x4. Of course they do the same thing - both go from A to B loudly and guzzle fuel. But I know which one will get me home. Without an array of engineers to retune it every day. but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... If they are they should be shot. UV is NOT an RDBMS. It's an MVDBMS. If you can't understand that, no wonder you're floundering. A hell of a lot of local and central governments, defence forces, fortune 500 companies use UV as an MVDBMS though - as does a lot of the SMI sector, that can't afford Oracle. I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I do. That's why I've developed with Borland products for 10 years and with Microsoft products for 15 years. And MV databases for even longer. Working with primitive data stores like SQL Server and Oracle just loses my will to live. Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Hi, Having been part of this list for only a short period I have found the discussions very useful and the answers to questions posed have always worked, even though we use Universe as our database, most of the solutions are universal across the MV community. I for one will be sorry to see the membership closed down... Thanks to Cliff for all his hard work over the years R, Sunny Matharoo Development Team Leader Tristar Worldwide Chauffeur Services Direct Line: +44 (0) 1753 771317 Fax: +44 (0) 1753 790101 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
So, UV does everything on the BackEnd, but SQL Server does your data warehousing. And you question why UV can't support the DW? Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend? No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB. It's not marketed as such. It's an extremely efficient, low-cost, high-performance, zero administration DB primarily geared at being the backend (as you have now) for application usage. It's primarily used as an embedded database shipped as part of a solution package. It is seldom sold as a stand-alone DB. Building actual applications that directly go at your Oracle/DB2's of the world is a pain in the arse. Administering said DBs is also a high-cost, complex, cumbersome task as well. Highlighting that the couple of UV people on your staff not knowing XML is somehow a weakness in the product is ludicrous. My wife is an Oracle expert/DBA/etc... she can barely spell XML. Does this imply Oracle's XML support sucks? Of course not. Again, you pick on UV, claiming you have to use DataStage to pull data out of UV into SQL Server. Why then: a) Doesn't SQL Server sufficiently handle your back-end? b) Can't SQL Server directly access the data? c) Is DataStage, the tool being used to do this (and handles Web Services, XML, XPath, XSLT, etc...), built on top of UniVerse? Finally, don't fall into the mistake that performing well would mean you would be in the top 3. Why? Simple... marketing wins over technology almost all the time. Informix was a great example. They had a wonderfully performant VLDB technology. They did very well in OLTP benchmarks. Yet, they weren't a top 3 DB (being #4/#5, depending on the timeframe). The U2 products are great products. They are not 'cutting edge', but they are not way behind either. Their target market is very different from the BigThree, and many would argue they are much better at the job they are intended for than the Big Three. They are NOT better at all things. But, for low-cost, low-maintenance embedded data base support with high-performance, high-user concurrency support, it's hard to beat it. Dave At 11:27 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the
RE: The lists are closing
Proof of seek and ye shall find. Thanks I have the www.indexinfocus.com archiver hooked up to it so it will archive the technical content. I am sure the site has archiving ability, but if you want the whole she-bang back to the heady-90's we have here. www.indexinfocus.com will include the u2 list content and the technical groups content from u2ug.org Lee On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Eppel,Gary wrote: I just tested the subscribe button on the Universe Forum and I am definitely receiving new posts as email. Unfortunately, to reply to the posting you have to do so on the webpage (there is a link provided in the email) :-( So it's half-way there in terms of the comments/wishes I've seen so far in this discussion. Would be nice if we could reply directly to the forum using a normal email reply. Gary Eppel Cerner Corp. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wendy Smoak Posted At: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:23 AM Posted To: Informix-mv Conversation: The lists are closing Subject: RE: The lists are closing Lee Leitner wrote: The archives for the lists (which go back to the mid-90's) would remain for now at http://www.indexinfocus.com. Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? How can we avoid then having two separate, disconnected places for information -- the list and the U2UG forums? For me it has to be email or newsgroup. I will not be as active in a forum that requires using a web browser as I will in an email list or newgroup. However, it looks like you can subscribe to the forums on u2ug.org, which I hope means that forum postings will arrive via email. If that's true, then if you have only email access at work, you should still be able to participate once you join and subscribe. Thanks, Clif, for hosting these lists. Without them, I never would have gotten all of my UniObjects for Java stuff working, nor been able to help so many other people get started. -- Wendy Smoak Application Systems Analyst, Sr. ASU IA Information Resources Management -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at (+1) (816)221-1024. -- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- Lee J. Leitner, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.leitner.org/~leitnerl The world can only be grasped by action, not by contemplation. The hand is the cutting edge of the mind. -- Jacob Bronowski V.13.0 --- -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing David, As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment. I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. infocusp limited is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by infocusp limited. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:36 PM To: U2 Users Discussion
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Brian, Correct me if I am wrong... IBM Says UV is an Extended relational database Well Some people call it MVDBMS. I wonder how this is different from Nested Table Data Structure within any RDBMS. Can you explain? Complex processing managed locally to the database, without having to add external business rule layers. Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets. I don't know how others are using UV... But I have only seen it being used as a DUMB FILE... with NO Rules Embedded in the DataBase. No Relational Data... and No Business Rules.. All Rules are Embedded within Programs (PICK)... So basically taking Data out of its Container to do a bunch of Business Logic. How is the above efficient? Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:53 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, I shouldn't even dignify this crap with a reply, but anyway ... 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. We've written complex web applications against UniVerse with several hundred permanently active users for local government systems (not just simple e-commerce or dynamic web). And they perform excellently, thank you. UV is used as a FLAT FILE... with a bunch of Stuff..packed on it.. and then use PICK to read through these UV Files. Then you're not using it correctly are you? Which puts you in no position to comment. Don't blame the technology for your incompetence in not making the correct use of it. MVDB is designed for embedded processing. Record level writes that don't have the overhead of a SQL layer. Complex processing managed locally to the database, without having to add external business rule layers. Not as a dumb machine to return or update record sets. In other words, comparing UV and an RDBMS are comparing chalk and cheese. They do different jobs. Try to use UV in the same way as Oracle and don't be surprised if it won't perform. Try to use Oracle in the same way as UV and the same thing happens. It doesn't work. Strangely if I tried to drive a formula 1 car around here it won't perform either. It would just break under the conditions. You need a 4x4. Of course they do the same thing - both go from A to B loudly and guzzle fuel. But I know which one will get me home. Without an array of engineers to retune it every day. but I don't belive Corporations use UV as RDBMS... If they are they should be shot. UV is NOT an RDBMS. It's an MVDBMS. If you can't understand that, no wonder you're floundering. A hell of a lot of local and central governments, defence forces, fortune 500 companies use UV as an MVDBMS though - as does a lot of the SMI sector, that can't afford Oracle. I belive developers should appreciate technology for 1. Performance 2. Scalability 3. Ease Of Integration. 4. Advanced Techniques. 5. Resources for Development... RAD etc. I do. That's why I've developed with Borland products for 10 years and with Microsoft products for 15 years. And MV databases for even longer. Working with primitive data stores like SQL Server and Oracle just loses my will to live. Brian This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan. DISCLAIMER This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. In the event of any technical difficulty with this email, please contact the sender or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microgen Information Management Solutions http://www.microgen.co.uk -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn - Clark Gable as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind At 12:01 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: With all due respects, Sir, you are beginning to bore the hell out of me! -- Clint Eastwood as Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Highway in Heartbreak Ridge David T. Meeks || All my life I'm taken by surprise Architect, Technology Office || I'm someone's waste of time Ascential Software || Now I walk a balanced line [EMAIL PROTECTED] || and step into tomorrow - IQ -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Last I looked at Visage, it: 1) required javascript skills 2) had no published price 3) had no developer copy available 4) had not only a developers cost but a per seat cost Apart from those 4 problems, however, the movies did make it look like an impressive product. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing David, As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment. I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the
Question for Donald Kibbey
Don, Picked this up on your reply to the guy who thinks strong typing is a virtue. So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). I would like to use C# against unidata what do I need to do this. I come from a mvBase background and am a little lost in the U2 market. Thanks much There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, what's your point? Use C# against the UV database if that's what you want to do (I and others have been doing this for a couple of years now). -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend? Simple Reason... Management Politics. No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB. WE AGREE 100% NOW! I was just trying to say the above. Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT in RD and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!. E.G. Is ASP.NET similar to Java J2EE? YES... as a matter of fact ASP.NET Copied a lot of the CORE Techniques... but why is ASP.NET just a little more better than Java J2EE? CAUSE: MS Had more money to PUMP into RD and were able to REFINE some of the Techniques...e.g. Core improvement in RUNTIME ENVIROMENT AND COMPILATION. I know you are one of the GURU's OF UV System, it nice to hear some agreement on this argument. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:56 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing So, UV does everything on the BackEnd, but SQL Server does your data warehousing. And you question why UV can't support the DW? Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle the backend? No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB. It's not marketed as such. It's an extremely efficient, low-cost, high-performance, zero administration DB primarily geared at being the backend (as you have now) for application usage. It's primarily used as an embedded database shipped as part of a solution package. It is seldom sold as a stand-alone DB. Building actual applications that directly go at your Oracle/DB2's of the world is a pain in the arse. Administering said DBs is also a high-cost, complex, cumbersome task as well. Highlighting that the couple of UV people on your staff not knowing XML is somehow a weakness in the product is ludicrous. My wife is an Oracle expert/DBA/etc... she can barely spell XML. Does this imply Oracle's XML support sucks? Of course not. Again, you pick on UV, claiming you have to use DataStage to pull data out of UV into SQL Server. Why then: a) Doesn't SQL Server sufficiently handle your back-end? b) Can't SQL Server directly access the data? c) Is DataStage, the tool being used to do this (and handles Web Services, XML, XPath, XSLT, etc...), built on top of UniVerse? Finally, don't fall into the mistake that performing well would mean you would be in the top 3. Why? Simple... marketing wins over technology almost all the time. Informix was a great example. They had a wonderfully performant VLDB technology. They did very well in OLTP benchmarks. Yet, they weren't a top 3 DB (being #4/#5, depending on the timeframe). The U2 products are great products. They are not 'cutting edge', but they are not way behind either. Their target market is very different from the BigThree, and many would argue they are much better at the job they are intended for than the Big Three. They are NOT better at all things. But, for low-cost, low-maintenance embedded data base support with high-performance, high-user concurrency support, it's hard to beat it. Dave At 11:27 AM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: We have UV doing everything on the BackEnd, we also have MSSQL Server to Support Data Warehousing... Why 2 Databases Systems? Cause UV Cant support Data Warehousing? Doesn't this eventually introduce Disparate Systems? U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support Its funny you say the above, UV/PICK Guys in our Team didn't even understand the basics of XML.. leave alone XPath, XQuery etc. These Technologies are NATIVELY Supported in ORACLE/DB2 Etc. e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Yes, we use DataStage to pull data out of UV Into MSSQL SERVER... For what? Why cant UV handle of the DB Job? As for Performance...UV Does NOT Perform Well in a OLTP Environment, SIMPLE: IF UV did Perform Well...Today's Fortune 500 would depend on UV and UV/PICK would have been in the TOP 3 OF DataBases. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David T. Meeks Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:37 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or
COMMON Variable.
Thanks Cliff for maintaining the wonderful user group. I will definitelyy miss it. Guys, Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program – which will be called using EXECUTE ‘PHANTOM ’. I’ve even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. Thanks. Carol. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: OKI Code 39 BarCode
Ray, You don't say which model Oki you're using. Manuals are on-line at http://my.okidata.com . Did you first issue the ESC DLE A command to specify that Code39 is to be used? For testing, try a string (HEX) like: 27 16 65 08 02 00 01 01 02 02 03 01 Kent At 06:42 AM 3/29/2004, Ray Buchner wrote: I'm have little documentation for my OKI's and am trying to print a Code 39 Bar Code on my pick tickets that contains the pick ticket number. That is the ID in the below example. What I have is: ESC DEL B 10 :ID Is this correct? It does not seem to be functioning. -Ray -- --- Kent Walker - Datatel Analyst Information Technology - U.C. Hastings College of the Law 415-565-4635 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: COMMON Variable.
From: Carolina Lizama [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program - which will be called using EXECUTE 'PHANTOM '. I've even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. Common exists on a per-user basis. So, if your phantom initializes it, it can use it. But there's no way to pass values stored in common from one user to another user. In other languages, you can do it via shared memory, but to the best of my knowledge, that's not available in Universe/Unidata at the application level. Obviously it exists at the OS and DB level, otherwise LIST.READU and its brethren would be pretty useless :) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
-Original Message- From: george r smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:21 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: Question for Donald Kibbey There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. Your not 01, so you must be 10 ? George George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: COMMON Variable.
Carolina, Could you write the variable out to a file and read it in within your program? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Carolina Lizama Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: COMMON Variable. Thanks Cliff for maintaining the wonderful user group. I will definitelyy miss it. Guys, Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program - which will be called using EXECUTE 'PHANTOM '. I've even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. Thanks. Carol. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- 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: COMMON Variable.
Why not write the value to a commonly located record and then read it in the phantom? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Allen Egerton Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:11 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: COMMON Variable. From: Carolina Lizama [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program - which will be called using EXECUTE 'PHANTOM '. I've even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. Common exists on a per-user basis. So, if your phantom initializes it, it can use it. But there's no way to pass values stored in common from one user to another user. In other languages, you can do it via shared memory, but to the best of my knowledge, that's not available in Universe/Unidata at the application level. Obviously it exists at the OS and DB level, otherwise LIST.READU and its brethren would be pretty useless :) -- 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: COMMON Variable.
Or pass it in the phantom statement and parse in out in the program. EXECUTE PHANTOM %PARM1%PARM2%PARM3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONVERT % TO @FM IN VAR PARM1=VAR2 PARM2=VAR3 PARM3=VAR4 unless it is a record or dimensioned array Vance Kevin King [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne.com cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: COMMON Variable. u2-users-bounces@ oliver.com 03/29/2004 01:20 PM Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List Why not write the value to a commonly located record and then read it in the phantom? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: The lists are closing
1) We DO want to leave the archives at indexinfocus. 2) We DONT want to replicate the archives onto u2ug 3) We DONT want the lists to continue Go to the web site, and enter each forum you are interested in and click on SUBSCRIBE this will make all responses come to your email box just as they do now. You can register, but if you dont SUBSCRIBE you wont be seeing nothing Will In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The archives for the lists (which go back to the mid-90's) would remain for now at http://www.indexinfocus.com. But I don't yet see a way to go forward on our site archiving the IBM web content so they'd be static. We do plan real soon now to add other content. Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? How can we avoid then having two separate, disconnected places for information -- the list and the U2UG forums? -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:07:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Populate UV and Oracle with around 10 Million records. 2. Write fairly complex Web Application against it. 3. Run a Web Application Stress tool(around 1000 Users) switching Databases within the same DB Machine. You don't have to be a scientist to look at Performance Monitor. That's an excellent suggestion JOE Can you please tell me how to write an interface from Apache to Universe ? Or something similiar? Because I'm too ignorant to know how to connect my Universe 9.4 to the web Thanks for your superior intellect that can solve issues like this PURELY in Universe BASIC (of course) since you're saying its Universe that is the problem here. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: The lists are closing
Not to be obnoxious but why not keep data in one place? How would it benefit someone to start a question in one medium and then be referred to another? That sound counter-intuitive to me. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:03 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: The lists are closing 1) We DO want to leave the archives at indexinfocus. 2) We DONT want to replicate the archives onto u2ug 3) We DONT want the lists to continue Go to the web site, and enter each forum you are interested in and click on SUBSCRIBE this will make all responses come to your email box just as they do now. You can register, but if you dont SUBSCRIBE you wont be seeing nothing Will In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The archives for the lists (which go back to the mid-90's) would remain for now at http://www.indexinfocus.com. But I don't yet see a way to go forward on our site archiving the IBM web content so they'd be static. We do plan real soon now to add other content. Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? How can we avoid then having two separate, disconnected places for information -- the list and the U2UG forums? -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: e.g. We pull XML Reports from our Vendors Real Time. I have to parse through the XML and give UV/PICK Guys a FLAT TEXT File... cause either UV Cannot handle the storage and Retrival of XML Data Using XPath/XQuery Techniques. Joe there is a big difference between these two statements: 1) Our UV programmers DONT KNOW how to handle XML and 2) UV cant handle XML Ever think maybe your company should spend a little money getting programmers who DO know how to make UV understand XML? Your being cheap is not our failure. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: What are embedded databases
In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:55:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: embedded data base support The other day, someone asked me if I used an embedded database. And I was like ... what? Can someone give ten words or less of what an embedded database is? And then maybe an example of a database that is NOT embedded? Thanks Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[OT] Joe Eugene was Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Please Speak LOUDER!!! *throws you a raw steak* Will raw steak Johnson In a message dated 3/29/2004 12:26:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT in RD and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: COMMON Variable.
In a message dated 3/29/2004 1:11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program - which will be called using EXECUTE 'PHANTOM '. I've even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. Yes Carolina. There are a few ways 1) EXECUTE PHANTOM some other stuff interpreted as variables 2) MYSTUFF = here are some more arguments WRITE MYSTUFF TO FILE, ITEM EXECUTE PHANTOM (which starts by reading MYSTUFF) 3) disconnected processes process A writes stuff and moves on process B at some other disconnected time EXECUTE PHANTON which reads the stuff writen by process A five minutes or five days ago 4) process A, B, C, D, E, etc write various stuff at various times process P starts the PHANTOM at boot time and it runs forever. The phantom periodically wakes up and looks for something to do, does it, then goes to sleep for a minute or so. Will Phantom Johnson -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
I think Joe may realize a couple things: 1) He doesn't know enough about the system to criticize it. 2) The IT people in his UV shop didn't know much either. Many Pick guys get into Pick because they know their business market but not much about technology, and Pick makes it easy to write software without being a real programmers. Once people do get into Pick, a high level of technical proficiency can be attained quickly - not always the same technical skills as in other areas but the job gets done nonetheless. Many people do branch out to understand how mainstream technologies integrate with Pick, but not everyone. As Dave says, when people don't extend beyond the basic skills it doesn't mean the technology itself is deficient. I think this will be my last comment on the topic. Tony Since people are posting quotes, the following came to mind: Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it. -Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784), I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed. -Unknown -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. When IBM has UO.NET, that situation may change, but developers must research and understand the capabilities of both products before making assumptions and decisions - it would be very wrong to assume that all .NET connectivity products are alike. Honestly you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV, you can roll your own connectivity, but there is value in having someone else develop, maintain, and enhance these tools for you. The same holds true for any GUI RAD IDE or Web building product in our market. See my article in the March/April edition of Spectrum Magazine about other .NET connectivity methods for U2. HTH, Tony Technical Editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing Author, Web Services and .NET articles, Spectrum Magazine Nebula RD now offers C# training with a C# MVP, MCSD trainer. george r smith wrote I would like to use C# against unidata what do I need to do this. I come from a mvBase background and am a little lost in the U2 market. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: COMMON Variable.
You don't seem to be able to put any values on the phantom line (and if you do, they seem to be ignored). I never tried Commons for this. Another method I use is I create a VOC entry based on UserNO and something static like: (ex. 101phantom) 1PA 2RUN LIB PROGRAMNAME PASSVAR1 PASSVAR2 PASSVAR3 PASSVA4 Then EXECUTE PHANTOM 101phantom Inside PROGRAMNAME: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PASSVAR1=FIELD(CMDLINE, ,4) PASSVAR2=FIELD(CMDLINE, ,5) ETC... Include the VOC ID as one of the PASSVAR, and have the program DELETE the VOC ENTRY. George -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: COMMON Variable. In a message dated 3/29/2004 1:11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program - which will be called using EXECUTE 'PHANTOM '. I've even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. Yes Carolina. There are a few ways 1) EXECUTE PHANTOM some other stuff interpreted as variables 2) MYSTUFF = here are some more arguments WRITE MYSTUFF TO FILE, ITEM EXECUTE PHANTOM (which starts by reading MYSTUFF) 3) disconnected processes process A writes stuff and moves on process B at some other disconnected time EXECUTE PHANTON which reads the stuff writen by process A five minutes or five days ago 4) process A, B, C, D, E, etc write various stuff at various times process P starts the PHANTOM at boot time and it runs forever. The phantom periodically wakes up and looks for something to do, does it, then goes to sleep for a minute or so. Will Phantom Johnson -- 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: Question for Donald Kibbey
In a message dated 3/29/2004 2:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
A Parting Request
Just as everyone else is, I too am sorry to see the list go away. My parting request is for help personally. I am currently unemployed or should I say an under-employed consultant after having been downsized about two years ago. I have over 20 year's experience with unidata/pick and IT project management. I am looking for consulting opportunities. Over the years, I have done some pretty neat things with converting long running programs to multi-threading and data exchange in and out of pick type files. I realize things are tough right now everywhere, but if you would be interested in speaking to me or getting a copy of my resume, please e-mail me directly. Thank you for your indulgence. Darwin Tellinghuisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
(adjusting tin foil headgear) You do realize that Micro$oft is really in the hard drive business. Of course .Net takes up a gazillion megabytes and to use my method of getting to UniVerse with C# (so you can type in all those cool looking semi-colons) you'll have to load another half gazillion megabytes of mostly unused J# java stuff too. But, you also get the benefit of holding your nose high and sniffing condescendingly at the mere vb developers who are not allowed to type in the cool semi-colons. Don Kibbey Financial Systems Manager Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner LLP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/04 02:57PM In a message dated 3/29/2004 2:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will -- 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: Question for Donald Kibbey
Tony, Get the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data and get the same support as Clink for mvBase - no thanks. There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:29 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Question for Donald Kibbey George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. When IBM has UO.NET, that situation may change, but developers must research and understand the capabilities of both products before making assumptions and decisions - it would be very wrong to assume that all .NET connectivity products are alike. Honestly you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV, you can roll your own connectivity, but there is value in having someone else develop, maintain, and enhance these tools for you. The same holds true for any GUI RAD IDE or Web building product in our market. See my article in the March/April edition of Spectrum Magazine about other .NET connectivity methods for U2. HTH, Tony Technical Editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing Author, Web Services and .NET articles, Spectrum Magazine Nebula RD now offers C# training with a C# MVP, MCSD trainer. george r smith wrote I would like to use C# against unidata what do I need to do this. I come from a mvBase background and am a little lost in the U2 market. -- 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: A Parting Request
Darwin, Sorry to hear you are in a dry spell. You might also consider posting your information on the Talent Available forum at www.u2ug.org, if you have not done so already. -- Regards, Clif I realize things are tough right now everywhere, but if you would be interested in speaking to me or getting a copy of my resume, please e-mail me directly. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? I can't speak of the Pick Data Provider for .NET, however, the .NET framework itself doesn't take up a 'gazillion' bytes. The framework (free download) is between 21 24MB (depending on the framework version) as a single install file. Assume that once it loads onto the system it will take a bit more space but you are probably still less than 50-75MB. Keep in mind that the framework will be built into all new MS operating systems (starting with Windows 2003). I don't really know what you are after with the integration requiring an object. Can you be more specific? Regards, Jim -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
MvBase? I think he was saying best provider for MV not for MvBase Right? And I didn't say it, he did. Will the real Will not the fake posing Will's Johnson In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:09:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Will, Unless something has changed since Friday, Raining Data's .NET provider does not connect to mvBase. There are only 10 people in the world who understand binary and I am not one of them. George Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:57 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Question for Donald Kibbey In a message dated 3/29/2004 2:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Unclassified RE: The lists are closing
Like Wol and a couple of others, my participation as a listener and occasional poster will stop if the medium changes from email to web or news-group. My employer does not permit desktop internet access - we do have a large and rich intranet - for reasons of security, of cost (we pay for TRAFFIC here!), and perhaps also of wanting employees to do the work they're paid for rather than surfing all day. So yes, I'm very sad at the prospect of the lists going away and being replaced by an inaccessible alternative. My general opinion is definitely that the lists should continue. I'm fairly indifferent as to who hosts them, though I must say that the U2UG.ORG web site looks very nice, I had a quick glance from home last night. If U2UG wants to host the lists, I'll gladly subscribe, or if acm.org wants to do it, I'm up for that. If it's a web- or newsgroup-based service, then I'll look by only very occasionally, or when I'm in need of help. My $NZ0.02 Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Leitner Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 04:03 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing [snip] Is there a general opinion that the email lists should continue? [snip] Lee The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Question for Donald Kibbey
In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:15:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't really know what you are after with the integration requiring an object. Can you be more specific? Regards, Jim Yes. Integrate as a verb I think applies to mathematics. But if I say My software integrates well I think most people would think A) you have math software ? or B) Your English is bad? Integrate in this sense requires a with and then an object with which it integrates. In other words My software integrates well with SAP, not just My software integrates well. Unless of course you are a salesman who was merely told to repeat that line and hope no one calls you out on it. Will Calling you Out Johnson -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
It would have been easier if you just asked me to reread the original post ;-) I think I know what Tony meant with his statement, but, it isn't appropriate for me to answer for him so I won't. Thanks for the English lesson - I think. Regards, Jim [snip] Integrate in this sense requires a with and then an object with which it integrates. In other words My software integrates well with SAP, not just My software integrates well. Unless of course you are a salesman who was merely told to repeat that line and hope no one calls you out on it. [snip] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: What are embedded databases
Well, not sure about 10 words or less, but here's my effort: An embedded database is a technology that is deployed as the component responsible for data management within a business application. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/29/2004 2:18 PM Subject: Re: What are embedded databases In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:55:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: embedded data base support The other day, someone asked me if I used an embedded database. And I was like ... what? Can someone give ten words or less of what an embedded database is? And then maybe an example of a database that is NOT embedded? Thanks Will -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Michael, Visage does not require Javascript skills, but if you have those skills Visage allows you to use them. The published price for Visage Designer is $2,495 USD and comes with 3 Run-Time versions. Additional Run-Time Visage versions are $265 each... but that amount is a one-time-only charge. If you want support for any Visage item, it is 20% of the original cost per item, per annum. We are currently running a special purchase plan wherein you can get the Visage Designer for $1,000 down payment and terms for the balance. Visage.BIT for data mining is $4,495 and requires at least one Visage Run-Time to view. In order to build your own data cubes (extractions) Visage.BIT requires the Visage Designer. However your clients may wish to retain you to do that for them. Developer versions of Visage Designer are what we sell. The Run-TIme costs are on par with the way most software is sold today. An application for an MS machine must be purchased for every PC using it within an enterprise or at least a Server copy which is more expensive. Visage Designer has many, many man years of RD invested in it and would sell for a monster price if we tried to recoupe its true value. As it is priced, everyone can enjoy the benefits according to their respective benefit which grows with the number of users. Visage is extreemly impressive and can be used right out of the box for system development and GUI conversion. And, we have people on two continents thus far, (AU and US) to assist you with your developments. I would be pleased to speak with you and have you talk with one of the people who helped design Visage. It really is a major breakthrough for the advancement of multi-value database systems, and the Visage.BIT is so impressive that you can easily gain new clients at the board room level. Please let me know if you would be interested in taking a further look at this powerful tool for building new products or enhancing older ones. Kind regards, Patrick Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: Michael Spencer To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:12 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Last I looked at Visage, it: 1) required javascript skills 2) had no published price 3) had no developer copy available 4) had not only a developers cost but a per seat cost Apart from those 4 problems, however, the movies did make it look like an impressive product. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like,
Unclassified RE: What are embedded databases
Hmm ... I thought that what IBM mean by 'embedded database' is the database you didn't even know you had. [8 words!] I.E., there's a database 'embedded' in the software package you bought / use, but you may have no idea that there is a database in there, and even if you do understand that fact, you've no idea which DBMS is actually 'under the hood'. ;-) Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: What are embedded databases Well, not sure about 10 words or less, but here's my effort: An embedded database is a technology that is deployed as the component responsible for data management within a business application. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/29/2004 2:18 PM Subject: Re: What are embedded databases In a message dated 3/29/2004 11:55:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: embedded data base support The other day, someone asked me if I used an embedded database. And I was like ... what? Can someone give ten words or less of what an embedded database is? And then maybe an example of a database that is NOT embedded? Thanks Will -- The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: What are embedded databases
Yep... Very true... Dave -Original Message- From: Stevenson, Charles To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: 3/29/2004 4:44 PM Subject: RE: What are embedded databases An embedded database is a technology that is deployed as the component responsible for data management within a business application. Dave The other day, someone asked me if I used an embedded database. So most of this list's members probably don't *use* an embedded database, but rather they are in the business of embedding one into their own application. And when they do, I guess they turn RetrieVe or UniQuery into an Embedded Reporter, eh? -- 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: COMMON Variable.
Is there a way to pass some common variable to a Phantom program - which will be called using EXECUTE 'PHANTOM '. I've even tried named COMMON and it lost its value. You could try 'named pipes' to pass the information BUT this is a large topic. You may need to do some investigation. It would help if we knew a little more about your requirements. Perhaps passing the information via a file would be sufficient BUT if speed is critical then 'named pipes' is the way to go. If it is only necessary to know the state (ie active|inactive etc.) then you could use the shared memory locks - try LIST.LOCKS. Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: SB error
Thank you David, I shall talk with the programmers. Regards Kafsat -Original Message- From: David Wolverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 1:19 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: SB error This would tell me that you have two programs running: Session 1 locks Record A Session 2 locks Record B Session 1 WANTS to lock Record B, and holds, awaiting the lock release Session 2 NOW Wants to lock Record A - if this happens, DEADLOCKS occurs - neither program will ever be able to progress. The system detects this, and kills Session 2 'for the good of all' - used to be 'in the old days' you'd just have two sessions sitting there forever Your best way to prevent Deadlocks is to ensure programs ALL lock files in the same order. In this example, Session 1's program locked A then B, while Session 2's propgram locked B, then A. That's a deadlock waiting to happen. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kafsat taiyus Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:26 AM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: SB error Hi, In a Unidata 5.2 SB+ plus environment running on Tru64 UNIX we are occasionally receiving following error. Fatal: deadlock will occur if this request of lock wait in the queue. File name: /file/NAME, inum: 57907, dev: -251488945, key: 136445950 Do anyone know why is this happening and how to fix it? Regards, Kafsat Taiyus This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose, store, copy or take any action in reliance on it or them. If you have received this message in error, please tell us by reply email (or telephone + 61 (0) 3 9274 9100) and delete all copies on your system. Any opinion, advice or information in this email is not necessarily that of the owners or officers of this company. Please advise us immediately if you or your employer do not consent to email for messages of this type. Retail Decisions has taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment to this email has been swept for viruses. However, we cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Please note that communications sent by or to any person through our computer system may be viewed by other Retail Decisions employees or officers strictly in accordance with law. -- 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 email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose, store, copy or take any action in reliance on it or them. If you have received this message in error, please tell us by reply email (or telephone + 61 (0) 3 9274 9100) and delete all copies on your system. Any opinion, advice or information in this email is not necessarily that of the owners or officers of this company. Please advise us immediately if you or your employer do not consent to email for messages of this type. Retail Decisions has taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment to this email has been swept for viruses. However, we cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Please note that communications sent by or to any person through our computer system may be viewed by other Retail Decisions employees or officers strictly in accordance with law. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Your product
Here is the file. -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: OKI Code 39 BarCode
One could check www.okidata.com to see if there's any support for manual printer driver stuff like bar codes. I use www.hp.com to get beaucoups of HP PCL stuff. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: Ray Buchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:42 AM Subject: OKI Code 39 BarCode I'm have little documentation for my OKI's and am trying to print a Code 39 Bar Code on my pick tickets that contains the pick ticket number. That is the ID in the below example. What I have is: ESC DEL B 10 :ID Is this correct? It does not seem to be functioning. -Ray -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Hi Joe I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database against another is meaningless. As a professional I consider all databases for any business requirement and select on their merits. To discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and negligent. There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered RDBMS in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong. If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle will probaly run better. If you take a typical Universe Application and run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better. The style of application can impact on speed, different databases are built for different styles of applications and a number of applications built in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a sacked CEO. I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other databases and applications and have generated award winning software. The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a solution that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development which is the norm in the Universe world. All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced. Regards David Jordan -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Michael, If you have VISAGE questions, Ross Ferris of STAMINA is a list member (we still have a few days in which we can call ourselves list members) and I'm sure he can answer your pricing and technology questions. - Charles We'll miss Clif Barouch Michael Spencer wrote: Last I looked at Visage, it: 1) required javascript skills 2) had no published price 3) had no developer copy available 4) had not only a developers cost but a per seat cost Apart from those 4 problems, however, the movies did make it look like an impressive product. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Sent: March 29, 2004 3:02 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing You want Pick on the web... simple, use Visage! Patrick Will Williams, President American Computer Technics, Inc. 919-567-0042 Raleigh, NC - Original Message - From: David T. Meeks To: U2 Users Discussion List Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:37 AM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing While one could make the argument that Pick has not embraced emerging technologies as rapidly as the 'Big Three', it HAS done so. U2, for example, has support for Java connectivity, XML, and I believe they either have or are working on Web Services support (I know, for example, that the DSEngine in DataStage has support for Web Services). One could argue the need or purpose of supporting certain technologies, and the level of support currently within the products, but to say that there is little/no support is a bit uninformed. The U2 products ARE supported in certain Integration software. I wouldn't typically consider SAP/PeopleSoft integration software. They are Enterprise Software Suites, but not geared particularly at 'integration'. However, given that SAP and PeopleSoft OEM the DataStage product sets for both of their integration products (SAP's BW, PeopleSoft's EPM, JDEdwards stuff as well), and given DataStage works very well with both U2 products, this point is actually wrong. People who have SAP or PeopleSoft solutions CAN, very easily, integrate their U2 data to/from those environments. As to 'efficiency', one can measure that in a variety of different dimensions. From a memory/disk space/footprint/administrative overhead dimensions, the U2 database products are VERY efficient. Finally, as to being slow, again this depends on the measurement criteria being used. From the perspective of concurrent user access and the performance of application style DB usage (largely input/output, multiple concurrent users, etc..), the U2 products stand up very well to the mainstream guys. For support of VLDB, highly transactional query-based usage models, and the like, it does not. Trying to make the U2 products into what they are not is wrong. They are not the panacea for every database requirement. However, for certain problems, especially those for which it was designed (embedded database for application development), it is very efficient. Dave At 10:24 PM 3/28/2004 -0500, you wrote: PICK is LEGACY Technology and does NOT Support alot of advanced level computing we have today. I belive PICK is Similiar to Legacy DB2 that used ISAM type of DataBases Access. Even IBM has moved DB2 (Now UDB) to a completly relational architecture. I belive some of the below are good reasons to Migrate to MainStream (Top 3 - DB2/Oracle/MSSQL etc) Databases. 1. UV has Little/NO support for Emerging Technologies(XML/XQuery/XSLT/WML etc) 2. UV is Not supported in Most Integration Enterprise Software (SAP/PeopleSoft) 3. UV is Not efficient compared to highly evolved databases(DB2/Oracle) 4. UV Folks seem to use PICK, which is Not Compatible with many of of the Current Advanced Technologies and Techniques. 5. UV is very SLOW, TOO Procedural and Not the right tool for an OLTP Environment. It would be nice if IBM provided a Package to convert all UV Stuff to IBM DB2 and perhaps provide some kinda code converter to convert all pick stuff to DB2 Stored Procs or Java Native Compiled Procedures. I belive this would be ideal and would help corportations intergrate systems easily. Joe Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Phil Walker Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 7:59 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: The lists are closing David, As the list is closing this is probably not off topic - so I will comment. I believe PICK has been around since the mid to late 1960's, whereas Oracle and the SQL relation model has been around only since the mid to late 1970's early 1980's if you are talking about Oracle etc. I may be wrong. Phil Walker +64 21 336294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] infocusp limited \\ PO Box 77032, Auckland New Zealand \ www.infocusp.co.nz DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is
Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you ignore search speed. Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology just to get Datastage. -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
The U2 List is better than CDP
CDP is all very well, but the noice ratio can be quite high, not to mention the trolls. If we don't move to U2UG (and I think U2UG will be fine once we can reply by email and they clarify their intellectual property problem, and it would be nice if their emails contained a bit less guff) we should consider moving to a moderated or subscription only list. I missed the chatter from U2community when the lists at Oliver split, but that made the U2 list all the more valuable as a focussed technical resource. A switch to CDP or another uncontrolled forum would lose this quality. As all many have said: thankyou Cliff. But for the list I might still belive in SQL. Craig -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Hi Joe, Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column table? Multiple fields (or columns if you insist) in the Universe database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is your choice to use it, you are not compelled to. How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your indexes structured? I haven't seen Universe Standards for indexing. Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area. Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument? I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it must be as it was the fast one 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Results Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you ignore search speed. Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology just to get Datastage. -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe, Have you checked the file sizes? Have you checked the index parameters? I'll make you a bet. You bring me in for a week (i'll probably need most of that week to prove my results, the fixes will take less than a day) and I bet you we can make a meaningful improvement in your response time. Just because UV doesn't require an Admin full time doesn't mean it won't benefit from occasional tune ups. -- Sincerely, Charles Give me a Week and I'll take down your Wait Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Eugene wrote: Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
This is what I meant ... TYPO RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card (*) Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: UV Version 10.1 Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC. Call it whatever you want. JOE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe, Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column table? Multiple fields (or columns if you insist) in the Universe database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is your choice to use it, you are not compelled to. How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your indexes structured? I haven't seen Universe Standards for indexing. Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area. Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument? I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it must be as it was the fast one 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Results Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you ignore search speed. Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology just to get Datastage. -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: PDP.NET, mvBASE, etc (was Question for Donald Kibbey)
george r smith wrote: Get the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data and get the same support as Clink for mvBase - no thanks. Well George, there are many more engineers and support people working on PDP.NET than on mvBASE. mvBASE is a dead-end DBMS product that RD inherited - Clink was dead when GA had it, don't blame RD for that. mvBASE is essentially R83 over Windows - it's seen it's day and it's about time that support start slowing down for this one. Compare this to Universe and Unidata, for which IBM has proven their intent to support the software unless and until they see as much interest as we see for mvBASE. If you're bashing RD support in general, YMMV, but I can tell you that RD is very motivated to market and support PDP in a way that I haven't seen in years. And as I said in my last post, to make uninformed decisions on matters like this is simply inappropriate. I didn't mean to imply that PDP.NET runs with mvBASE. That's like putting a Corvette body over your VB Bug. Without trying to digress more OT from this U2 forum, you CAN use mvBASE and other MV DBMS products with .NET. In that case I would use FlashCONNECT as the conduit, and create a .NET wrapper around HTTP calls. This sort of interface can give new life to a number of applications that most people have written off. Similar connectivity can be created for U2 apps, just use a different pipe like UO or InterCall. (We have a new pipe here at Nebula RD that is MV platform agnostic. Announcements will be made in about a month.) This is pretty much the topic of my article in the current Spectrum Magazine. Tony, Nebula RD Connecting MV with ... everything -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Question for Donald Kibbey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George, the best commercial integration option available for MV right now is the Pick Data Provider .NET from Raining Data. But doesn't .NET take up like a gazillion bytes of space? And doesn't integration require an object? As in... integration with .. what? Will I don't know why I need to clarify that statement, the other guys got it fine. An integration option for MV sort of implies between MV and anything else that uses .NET. The word for is just as good a preposition as with. I also said: you don't need any data provider for .NET integration with MV. This implies that .NET itself _is_ the object. Since the whole purpose of .NET is to serve as a common ground for development, if you have integrated with .NET then you have accomplished a goal. This further implies that you can now integrate with anything else that is also .NET-compatible. Yes, connectivity, interaction, and real integration do have different connotations and I try to be more careful about my choice of words. You can connect to anything but unless you have a good API around your connectivity you aren't really integrating. PDP.NET is an API like UO but it is much more, and it does take advantage of .NET where UO does not and UO.NET may not - we'll see. HTH, Tony -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Dude, your like the dog that just won't stop humping the guests leg. Get over it already. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:31 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing David, All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced I am very open minded to all Technologies and I think every software professional will benefit from being open to technologies. I have been unable to convince myself that an UV Brings any kind of value for the below in an OLTP Environment. 1. Advanced Level Software Development. 2. Performance 3. Scalability etc Nested tables (Big Feature for UV) is not something new, most relational databases accommodate this feature at a much higher level. IF BIG THREE Databases (DB2/ORACLE/MSSQL) was poor on ROI... Why would 75% of the worlds Corporations depend on such databases? Can you Name One BIG Fortune 100 that totally relies on UV? I have heard stories where several corporations migrated to RDBMS, Never heard any LARGE Corp(Hershey, GE, BOfA etc) switch to UV/MVDBMS. Never seen any Enterprise Software (SAP, PeopleSoft etc) mention UV on their Web Sites Never seen a book on UV OR PICK at Barnes Nobles. Perhaps you can explain where UV plays an Important Role. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of djordan Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:43 PM To: 'U2 Users Discussion List' Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe I have worked with variety of databases and I think using one performance statistic to evaluate the capabilities of one database against another is meaningless. As a professional I consider all databases for any business requirement and select on their merits. To discount MV products from that list would be unproffesional and negligent. There are numerous cases where Universe has clobbered RDBMS in the real world and a cost per transaction it is very strong. If you take an Oracle style application and run it on Universe, Oracle will probaly run better. If you take a typical Universe Application and run it on another RDBMS, Universe will most likely run better. The style of application can impact on speed, different databases are built for different styles of applications and a number of applications built in the PICK world do not transfer to RDBMS to the surprise of many a sacked CEO. I have used Universe to integrate with a significant number of other databases and applications and have generated award winning software. The most critical requirement for any is bussiness is to have a solution that is reliable, creates an ROI and is on schedule in development which is the norm in the Universe world. All I ask is to keep an open mind as PICK plays an important role in some areas of technology that cannot be replaced. Regards David Jordan -- 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: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
Joe Have you sized your UV file correctly? The 15-20 seconds suggests many things are not as they should be. Can you do an ANALYZE.FILE on this file and post the details. If it is a dynamic hashed file include the option STATS please. We may be able to help you after all. Cheers Trevor Ockenden OSP - Original Message - From: Joe Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing This is what I meant ... TYPO RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card (*) Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: UV Version 10.1 Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Column: First Name Search Type: Wild Card Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds PICK = A FLAVOR of BASIC...Sometimes called PICK BASIC OR UV BASIC. Call it whatever you want. JOE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:55 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Hi Joe, Perhaps you could share your actual searches, code and database structure? Were you searching 20 million records in a single column table? Multiple fields (or columns if you insist) in the Universe database? What is this PICK you keep talking about? Universe doesn't have a component named PICK, there is certainly a flavour. That is your choice to use it, you are not compelled to. How do we know you are comparing apples with apples? How were your indexes structured? I haven't seen Universe Standards for indexing. Please elucidate on this as I am obviously ignorant in this area. Unfortunately your claims are now starting to fluctuate between the fantastic and the ludicrous. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't provide a sound basis for your argument? I presume you meant the first database to be Universe? Obviously it must be as it was the fast one 8-) Regards David Logan Database Administrator HP Managed Services 139 Frome Street, Adelaide 5000 Australia +61 8 8408 4273 +61 417 268 665 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Eugene Sent: Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:17 AM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Charles, Our Customer Information is stored in UV and accessed via PICK. This FILE (as UV ppl call it) contains around 500,000 Records in it. Everything is INDEXED Per UV Standards. Here is simple WILD CARD Search Test. RESULTS Machine: 950 MHZ Athlon Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 20 Million Indexes: NO Search Time: 2 Seconds -- Machine: QUAD Processor Box (4 GHZ) Database: MSSQL SERVER 2K Records: 500,000 Indexes: YES Search Time: 15 - 20 Seconds I had to Increase the Time out on application servers to support MR.SLOW UV! How do you think I am supposed to believe UV Performs Well. Thanks, Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Results Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:06 PM To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing Joe, Here's a few things to consider. MV environments (including UniVerse), allow for small teams to develop and adjust business rules more quickly than you can you can in Oracle, Sybase, or Informix. Published statistics show that MV environments are roughly twice as efficient in disk usage (smaller footprint means faster searches - forget the 'who cares, disk is cheap' argument, search speed is always a premium issue). MV environments are typically three times as efficient on CPU and memory usage. That means that a given system running an MV environment is triple the speed of a Big Three database even when you ignore search speed. Also, since Datastage is one of the best data warehousing systems in the world (and it has a common ancestry to the U2 technology), you can be assured that MV environments make excellent data marts, data warehouses, and data repositories. Informix bought the U2 technology just to get Datastage. -- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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]
