Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2010


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 105445
interpreted = N
texte = This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090401090500090604020504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Govinda, Thanks for your reply. I do use the [replace with option to append if not found] in some situations such as when adding products so model numbers remain unique. However, there are many instances where I need auto numeric serialization. I have been following this list and reading the archives for a while. I find WebDNA easy to learn and want to stick with it. However, I am finding post after post talking abount workarounds. I am beginning to get concerned wondering when I should trust a provided function such as [autonumber] and when I need to look for a workaround. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then why is it provided at all? Having to guess what really works and when I need to look for a workaround makes learning and moving forward difficult for me. I use [autonumber] in just about every database. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then I have a ton of things to go back and change. Thanks again for your reply. Best Regards, Steve Govinda wrote: >> #1) In this short time, the [autonumber] function created at least >> (2) identical, yet uniquely autonumbered records for (2) different >> customer submits. Both duplicate entries show a unique autonumber 1 >> apart from each other and show a time stamp of exactly the same time >> down to the second. The user clicking the submit button more than >> once should not be the issue here. I have the contest limited to one >> entrant per email address per month. When the form is submitted, it >> first searches the contest.db file for an existing record generated >> this month that contains the same email address being submitted. >> WebDNA should have found the first record and not written the second >> record due to the email address match but it did so twice. The time >> between the two occurrences is roughly 3 hours. > > Hi Steve > > I dunno, > ...but regarding your first paragraph... pehaps you could try a > workaround for [autnumber] by using code like what is found at the > bottom (User Contributed Notes - See Gary's), from here: > > http://docs.webdna.us/pages.html?context=ReplaceContext.html > > ...just a thought. I never use [autonumber] so I can't say. > In the past we have always used [cart] (or even sometimes > [cart]_[index] , when inside a loop) to generate a unique ID for a > field val. > I have seen code like Gary's example working fine.. but not under a > heavy-simultaneous-use environment. But it may be safer than > [autonumber] (?).. by the sound of things that you are finding. > > -- > Govinda > govinda.webdnatalk@gmail.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------090401090500090604020504 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Govinda,

Thanks for your reply. I do use the [replace with option to append if not found] in some situations such as when adding products so model numbers remain unique. However, there are many instances where I need auto numeric serialization. I have been following this list and reading the archives for a while. I find WebDNA easy to learn and want to stick with it. However, I am finding post after post talking abount workarounds. I am beginning to get concerned wondering when I should trust a provided function such as [autonumber] and when I need to look for a workaround. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then why is it provided at all? Having to guess what really works and when I need to look for a workaround makes learning and moving forward difficult for me. I use  [autonumber] in just about every database. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then I have a ton of things to go back and change.

Thanks again for your reply.

Best Regards,
Steve



Govinda wrote:
#1) In this short time, the [autonumber] function created at least (2) identical, yet uniquely autonumbered records for (2) different customer submits. Both duplicate entries show a unique autonumber 1 apart from each other and show a time stamp of exactly the same time down to the second. The user clicking the submit button more than once should not be the issue here. I have the contest limited to one entrant per email address per month. When the form is submitted, it first searches the contest.db file for an existing record generated this month that contains the same email address being submitted. WebDNA should have found the first record and not written the second record due to the email address match but it did so twice. The time between the two occurrences is roughly 3 hours.

Hi Steve

I dunno,
...but regarding your first paragraph...  pehaps you could try a workaround for [autnumber] by using code like what is found at the bottom (User Contributed Notes - See Gary's), from here:

http://docs.webdna.us/pages.html?context=ReplaceContext.html

...just a thought.  I never use [autonumber] so I can't say.
In the past we have always used [cart] (or even sometimes [cart]_[index] , when inside a loop) to generate a unique ID for a field val.
I have seen code like Gary's example working fine.. but not under a heavy-simultaneous-use environment.  But it may be safer than [autonumber] (?)..  by the sound of things that you are finding.

--
Govinda
govinda.webdnatalk@gmail.com 


-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------090401090500090604020504-- Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Tom Duke 2010)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & ("Terry Wilson" 2010)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Govinda 2010)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Dale Therio 2010)
  9. Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Govinda 2010)
  10. [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090401090500090604020504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Govinda, Thanks for your reply. I do use the [replace with option to append if not found] in some situations such as when adding products so model numbers remain unique. However, there are many instances where I need auto numeric serialization. I have been following this list and reading the archives for a while. I find WebDNA easy to learn and want to stick with it. However, I am finding post after post talking abount workarounds. I am beginning to get concerned wondering when I should trust a provided function such as [autonumber] and when I need to look for a workaround. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then why is it provided at all? Having to guess what really works and when I need to look for a workaround makes learning and moving forward difficult for me. I use [autonumber] in just about every database. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then I have a ton of things to go back and change. Thanks again for your reply. Best Regards, Steve Govinda wrote: >> #1) In this short time, the [autonumber] function created at least >> (2) identical, yet uniquely autonumbered records for (2) different >> customer submits. Both duplicate entries show a unique autonumber 1 >> apart from each other and show a time stamp of exactly the same time >> down to the second. The user clicking the submit button more than >> once should not be the issue here. I have the contest limited to one >> entrant per email address per month. When the form is submitted, it >> first searches the contest.db file for an existing record generated >> this month that contains the same email address being submitted. >> WebDNA should have found the first record and not written the second >> record due to the email address match but it did so twice. The time >> between the two occurrences is roughly 3 hours. > > Hi Steve > > I dunno, > ...but regarding your first paragraph... pehaps you could try a > workaround for [autnumber] by using code like what is found at the > bottom (User Contributed Notes - See Gary's), from here: > > http://docs.webdna.us/pages.html?context=ReplaceContext.html > > ...just a thought. I never use [autonumber] so I can't say. > In the past we have always used [cart] (or even sometimes > [cart]_[index] , when inside a loop) to generate a unique ID for a > field val. > I have seen code like Gary's example working fine.. but not under a > heavy-simultaneous-use environment. But it may be safer than > [autonumber] (?).. by the sound of things that you are finding. > > -- > Govinda > govinda.webdnatalk@gmail.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------090401090500090604020504 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Govinda,

Thanks for your reply. I do use the [replace with option to append if not found] in some situations such as when adding products so model numbers remain unique. However, there are many instances where I need auto numeric serialization. I have been following this list and reading the archives for a while. I find WebDNA easy to learn and want to stick with it. However, I am finding post after post talking abount workarounds. I am beginning to get concerned wondering when I should trust a provided function such as [autonumber] and when I need to look for a workaround. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then why is it provided at all? Having to guess what really works and when I need to look for a workaround makes learning and moving forward difficult for me. I use  [autonumber] in just about every database. If [autonumber] is unreliable, then I have a ton of things to go back and change.

Thanks again for your reply.

Best Regards,
Steve



Govinda wrote:
#1) In this short time, the [autonumber] function created at least (2) identical, yet uniquely autonumbered records for (2) different customer submits. Both duplicate entries show a unique autonumber 1 apart from each other and show a time stamp of exactly the same time down to the second. The user clicking the submit button more than once should not be the issue here. I have the contest limited to one entrant per email address per month. When the form is submitted, it first searches the contest.db file for an existing record generated this month that contains the same email address being submitted. WebDNA should have found the first record and not written the second record due to the email address match but it did so twice. The time between the two occurrences is roughly 3 hours.

Hi Steve

I dunno,
...but regarding your first paragraph...  pehaps you could try a workaround for [autnumber] by using code like what is found at the bottom (User Contributed Notes - See Gary's), from here:

http://docs.webdna.us/pages.html?context=ReplaceContext.html

...just a thought.  I never use [autonumber] so I can't say.
In the past we have always used [cart] (or even sometimes [cart]_[index] , when inside a loop) to generate a unique ID for a field val.
I have seen code like Gary's example working fine.. but not under a heavy-simultaneous-use environment.  But it may be safer than [autonumber] (?)..  by the sound of things that you are finding.

--
Govinda
govinda.webdnatalk@gmail.com 


-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------090401090500090604020504-- Steve Raslevich

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Question re: FlushDatabases (1997) Storefornts (1997) Multiple radio buttons (1998) Still Stumped on ShowNext...HELP! (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997) LetterRip and WebCat & more (1998) HELP WITH DATES (1997) Sample Tearoom Search Error - Solved! (1997) form data submission gets truncated (1997) WebCommerce: Folder organization ? (1997) Stay on Products page (2003) Sorting search by date. (2000) Firesite cache vs webcat cache (1997) triggering an update of two frames (1998) Creating main- and sub-category search (1997) WebCat2 - storing unformatted date data? (1997) Changing the value assigned to a formvariable (2000) AD Error Msg (1997) If Empty ? (1997) Hidden or Forbidden? (1998)