Search results

Then, what does this mean? 2. live update of data whilde browsing

Say a bit about how you are controlling transaction scope. One of the reason for working against local tables or variables is so that there is no open transaction while you are doing the work and a very short transaction with no UI to commit the changes to the DB when done.

One might note that the default in ABL is share-lock and one has to explicitly say "no-lock".

I would think the first question would be whether or not there is a Progress installation on the machine somewhere. If that backup file was indeed created in May, then it seems likely. Also, who created that ... something else you could find in the log. Are they still around? Probably a lot...

I can't see how there is a chance of any problem. Why does this seem like an invitation to a real head scratcher!?

Quite aside from the vagaries of sort order and the like, it is almost certain that treating the first record of a group as special is a violation of good relational design. It is certainly reasonable to do a CAN-FIND test to determine whether or not there is one or more records matching...

I suppose the question now is, how long will it stay that way...

And only post to one forum with the same question.

Have you considered doing write-ups like this and posting them on wss.com so that you just need to drop the URL to respond thoroughly?

It is probably worth noting that, if the concern for performance is based on the existing unified database, it is quite likely that something else is the source of the performance issues, rather than it coming from a unified database.

Important in this evaluation is that it is highly likely that some transactions will span databases, necessitating two phase commit and the risk of one side of that transaction failing.

Perhaps all present know this, but I think it is worth saying explicitly ... some databases have table relationships expressly specified in the data structure of the database, but Progress does not. Some packages have naming conventions like those referred to above, sometimes complicated by a...

Notably, object-oriented constructs.

While implied by what Tom said, I think it is worth noting that dynamic code tends to be obscure while static code can be very clear in intent and purpose.

Declaring the variable in the enclosing program will allow you to use it in both places, but is sloppy programming. Much better to explicitly pass in any values needed by the outside program and to explicitly return any values needed later.

My first question is, why would you ever write code like that? If, for example, you consistently used bcust throughout, I am sure the compiler would complain.

This really should be a new thread.

You seem to be confusing variables. Nowhere in your code do you set the value of tog_demo except with the initial clause so of course it is still false. And, why input since there is no UI statement in your code.

It would be an interesting question to ask at Progress Communities as for the largest user count that anyone has seen.

If you are up for restructuring this code, one design idea you might consider is encapsulating temp-tables in their own class with access methods to operate on the temp-table. That isolates knowledge of the specific schema of the temp-table to that class and everything else merely knows about...