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

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2010

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 105447
interpreted = N
texte = > 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,> SteveSteve,of course you are totally right.. and we ALL want WebDNA to have enough users and support again so that we collectively suss out all the internal source-code issues *and* WSC actually fixes them.. not to mention all the new features we want! (last night I was dreaming of a [while] loop instead of a recursive include ;-)I just have the habit of posting things that make at least an effort to actually help somewhat while we wait/dream. I mean, clearly I am not in position to fix [autonumber] (if that is even your real issue?) .. but I might have an idea that actually helps you get your code/server happy in the meanwhile.Webdna is an interesting mix of experiences.. Many long timers here can vouch for the fact that webdna can perform beautifully even under very heavy load doing real serious production work. And then on the other end of the spectrum we find sometimes weird poor performance even under relatively small load. Maybe there is always a lame-code reason behind the latter. But I suspect there are at least a few underlying source code issues that would love to see the light of development $$$ and attention. Everyone on this list shares that sentiment.. or they would not be here.Back to practical for a moment...I read just a little of the code you just posted.. and I see at least one thing that may help reduce the burden you are placing your server under:you don't need to loop through every char of a submitted email address to see if it contains a "@", or dot. Just do something like this:[showif [URL][_CEMAIL][/URL]^[URL]@[/URL]][!]-- now we know the submitted email contains the @ char.--[/!][text]emailcheck=ok[/text][/showif]or check for a dot char too while at it:[if ("[URL][_CEMAIL][/URL]"^"[URL]@[/URL]") & ("[URL][_CEMAIL][/ URL]"^".")][then][!]-- now we know the submitted email contains the @ char and a dot too.--[/!][text]emailcheck=ok[/text][/then][else][text]emailcheck=FAILED[/text][/else][/if]you could throw a 3rd comparison into the same [if].. to count the # of chars (just remember to leave off the values' surrounding quotes marks to compare with a < or > comp char.there may be several more things you can do to improve performance.. that was just the first quick thing I noticed with the 5 mins I had just now.-G Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Tom Duke 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & ("Terry Wilson" 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Govinda 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Dale Therio 2010)
Re: [WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Govinda 2010)
[WebDNA] autonumber duplication, time stamp issue & locking up (Steve Raslevich 2010)

> 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,> SteveSteve,of course you are totally right.. and we ALL want WebDNA to have enough users and support again so that we collectively suss out all the internal source-code issues *and* WSC actually fixes them.. not to mention all the new features we want! (last night I was dreaming of a [while] loop instead of a recursive include ;-)I just have the habit of posting things that make at least an effort to actually help somewhat while we wait/dream. I mean, clearly I am not in position to fix [autonumber] (if that is even your real issue?) .. but I might have an idea that actually helps you get your code/server happy in the meanwhile.Webdna is an interesting mix of experiences.. Many long timers here can vouch for the fact that webdna can perform beautifully even under very heavy load doing real serious production work. And then on the other end of the spectrum we find sometimes weird poor performance even under relatively small load. Maybe there is always a lame-code reason behind the latter. But I suspect there are at least a few underlying source code issues that would love to see the light of development $$$ and attention. Everyone on this list shares that sentiment.. or they would not be here.Back to practical for a moment...I read just a little of the code you just posted.. and I see at least one thing that may help reduce the burden you are placing your server under:you don't need to loop through every char of a submitted email address to see if it contains a "@", or dot. Just do something like this:[showif [url][_CEMAIL][/URL]^[url]@[/URL]][!]-- now we know the submitted email contains the @ char.--[/!][text]emailcheck=ok[/text][/showif]or check for a dot char too while at it:[if ("[url][_CEMAIL][/URL]"^"[url]@[/URL]") & ("[url][_CEMAIL][/ URL]"^".")][then][!]-- now we know the submitted email contains the @ char and a dot too.--[/!][text]emailcheck=ok[/text][/then][else][text]emailcheck=FAILED[/text][/else][/if]you could throw a 3rd comparison into the same [if].. to count the # of chars (just remember to leave off the values' surrounding quotes marks to compare with a < or > comp char.there may be several more things you can do to improve performance.. that was just the first quick thing I noticed with the 5 mins I had just now.-G Govinda

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

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

2010

Top Articles:

Related Readings: