Kevin:

You're correct that it's pretty easy to work around this problem...yes
they're in an include.  But, IMHO of course, the analysis that it's "no big
deal" is slightly off the mark.  

When we went from 300 baud to 1200 baud then to 4800 baud then to 9600 baud
all of us, well most of us anyway, would refuse to go back!  This is the
cost of progress.  That's the point here.  Either other systems have
progressed or other mvDbms products have progressed.  For U2 to keep up with
the front edge of technology some very important deficiencies need to be
addressed.  Limiting named common labels to seven characters is just one of
a numerous list of deficiencies.

Now, I'm not saying U2 is a bad product at all.  I'm just saying U2 can
certainly grow dramatically, if it appeals to new people and development.
In order to do this it's got to be easy to use and connect to and relatively
inexpensive to develop on.  

Certainly appealing to other mvDbms users/developers would be a good start.
It's difficult to warm up to the U2 products when it's terribly difficult to
move data and dictionaries into a U2 environment (re: see the T-DUMP and
Fast File Transfers list postings), working at TCL/ECL is like slicing
tomatoes with a stone knife, using a line editor is excruciatingly painful,
UniAdmin is unstable and doesn't include anywhere near the number of
administrative tasks needed, and UniDebugger is a good start but definitely
needs improvement.

So, following the good advice given by those such as you, I'm changing the
labels of the named common from "DtaSecurity_files" to "S_files", etc.  :-)

Thanks again.  The help I get from this list is greatly appreciated.

Bill
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin King
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [U2] UD: Named common
> 
> >On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
> >Perhaps the big difference is that while an older environment
> >could have hundreds of spreadsheets or basic programs, a MV
> >system probably won'd have but a few names common entities.
> 
> And if you're using an include to bring in the named common, 
> what's the big deal anyway?  Okay, so the named common name 
> can't be larger than 7 characters.  Frankly, the 7 is a 
> little weird (3 bits?) but considering we have so few 
> limitations anyway and this one is so easily worked around 
> for most apps, I just don't see anything of real concern.
> 
> -K
-------
u2-users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/

Reply via email to