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

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2010


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 105448
interpreted = N
texte = If you use [replace append=3Dt] and look for the email=20 address, it shouldn't hurt anything. They can only enter=20 once a month anyway, and you are already checking that=20 they haven't entered that month. This way you wouldn't=20 even have to do that check. I assume you run the drawing=20 based on the entry date, so this wouldn't hurt that=20 either. In fact it would keep your db smaller. Terry On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:46:45 -0400 Steve Raslevich =20 wrote: > Hi Govinda, >=20 > Thanks for your reply. I do use the [replace with option=20 >to append if not found] in some situations such as when=20 >adding products so model numbers remain unique. However,=20 >there are many instances where I need auto numeric=20 >serialization. I have been following this list and=20 >reading the archives for a while. I find WebDNA easy to=20 >learn and want to stick with it. However, I am finding=20 >post after post talking abount workarounds. I am=20 >beginning to get concerned wondering when I should trust=20 >a provided function such as [autonumber] and when I need=20 >to look for a workaround. If [autonumber] is unreliable,=20 >then why is it provided at all? Having to guess what=20 >really works and when I need to look for a workaround=20 >makes learning and moving forward difficult for me. I use=20 > [autonumber] in just about every database. If=20 >[autonumber] is unreliable, then I have a ton of things=20 >to go back and change. >=20 > Thanks again for your reply. >=20 > Best Regards, > Steve >=20 >=20 >=20 > Govinda wrote: >>> #1) In this short time, the [autonumber] function=20 >>>created at least=20 >>> (2) identical, yet uniquely autonumbered records for (2)=20 >>>different=20 >>> customer submits. Both duplicate entries show a unique=20 >>>autonumber 1=20 >>> apart from each other and show a time stamp of exactly=20 >>>the same time=20 >>> down to the second. The user clicking the submit button=20 >>>more than=20 >>> once should not be the issue here. I have the contest=20 >>>limited to one=20 >>> entrant per email address per month. When the form is=20 >>>submitted, it=20 >>> first searches the contest.db file for an existing=20 >>>record generated=20 >>> this month that contains the same email address being=20 >>>submitted.=20 >>> WebDNA should have found the first record and not=20 >>>written the second=20 >>> record due to the email address match but it did so=20 >>>twice. The time=20 >>> between the two occurrences is roughly 3 hours. >> >> Hi Steve >> >> I dunno, >> ...but regarding your first paragraph... pehaps you=20 >>could try a=20 >> workaround for [autnumber] by using code like what is=20 >>found at the=20 >> bottom (User Contributed Notes - See Gary's), from here: >> >> http://docs.webdna.us/pages.html?context=3DReplaceContext.html >> >> ...just a thought. I never use [autonumber] so I can't=20 >>say. >> In the past we have always used [cart] (or even=20 >>sometimes=20 >> [cart]_[index] , when inside a loop) to generate a=20 >>unique ID for a=20 >> field val. >> I have seen code like Gary's example working fine.. but=20 >>not under a=20 >> heavy-simultaneous-use environment. But it may be safer=20 >>than=20 >> [autonumber] (?).. by the sound of things that you are=20 >>finding. >> >> --=20 >> Govinda >> govinda.webdnatalk@gmail.com >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 =A0 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)
If you use [replace append=3Dt] and look for the email=20 address, it shouldn't hurt anything. They can only enter=20 once a month anyway, and you are already checking that=20 they haven't entered that month. This way you wouldn't=20 even have to do that check. I assume you run the drawing=20 based on the entry date, so this wouldn't hurt that=20 either. In fact it would keep your db smaller. Terry On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:46:45 -0400 Steve Raslevich =20 wrote: > Hi Govinda, >=20 > Thanks for your reply. I do use the [replace with option=20 >to append if not found] in some situations such as when=20 >adding products so model numbers remain unique. However,=20 >there are many instances where I need auto numeric=20 >serialization. I have been following this list and=20 >reading the archives for a while. I find WebDNA easy to=20 >learn and want to stick with it. However, I am finding=20 >post after post talking abount workarounds. I am=20 >beginning to get concerned wondering when I should trust=20 >a provided function such as [autonumber] and when I need=20 >to look for a workaround. If [autonumber] is unreliable,=20 >then why is it provided at all? Having to guess what=20 >really works and when I need to look for a workaround=20 >makes learning and moving forward difficult for me. I use=20 > [autonumber] in just about every database. If=20 >[autonumber] is unreliable, then I have a ton of things=20 >to go back and change. >=20 > Thanks again for your reply. >=20 > Best Regards, > Steve >=20 >=20 >=20 > Govinda wrote: >>> #1) In this short time, the [autonumber] function=20 >>>created at least=20 >>> (2) identical, yet uniquely autonumbered records for (2)=20 >>>different=20 >>> customer submits. Both duplicate entries show a unique=20 >>>autonumber 1=20 >>> apart from each other and show a time stamp of exactly=20 >>>the same time=20 >>> down to the second. The user clicking the submit button=20 >>>more than=20 >>> once should not be the issue here. I have the contest=20 >>>limited to one=20 >>> entrant per email address per month. When the form is=20 >>>submitted, it=20 >>> first searches the contest.db file for an existing=20 >>>record generated=20 >>> this month that contains the same email address being=20 >>>submitted.=20 >>> WebDNA should have found the first record and not=20 >>>written the second=20 >>> record due to the email address match but it did so=20 >>>twice. The time=20 >>> between the two occurrences is roughly 3 hours. >> >> Hi Steve >> >> I dunno, >> ...but regarding your first paragraph... pehaps you=20 >>could try a=20 >> workaround for [autnumber] by using code like what is=20 >>found at the=20 >> bottom (User Contributed Notes - See Gary's), from here: >> >> http://docs.webdna.us/pages.html?context=3DReplaceContext.html >> >> ...just a thought. I never use [autonumber] so I can't=20 >>say. >> In the past we have always used [cart] (or even=20 >>sometimes=20 >> [cart]_[index] , when inside a loop) to generate a=20 >>unique ID for a=20 >> field val. >> I have seen code like Gary's example working fine.. but=20 >>not under a=20 >> heavy-simultaneous-use environment. But it may be safer=20 >>than=20 >> [autonumber] (?).. by the sound of things that you are=20 >>finding. >> >> --=20 >> Govinda >> govinda.webdnatalk@gmail.com >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 =A0 "Terry Wilson"

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:

PCS Frames (1997) WC2.0 Memory Requirements (1997) system crashes, event log (1997) reading a email (2000) RE: WebCat and image maps (1997) Last desperate attempt (1998) WebCat, switching from NT to OSX (2003) Using Currencies other than Dollars (1997) Multiple SSL Keys (1998) [WebDNA] Lookup inside grep?... (2011) Location of Browser Info.txt file (1997) JavaScript form question (2001) Multi Math bug? (2000) WebCatalog [FoundItems] Problem - LONG - (1997) [WebDNA] v.7 and eCommerce (2012) WCS Newbie question (1997) Nesting [RAW] (1998) Help! WebCat2 bug (1997) Typhoon Pro Admin and Problems (2001) 2.0Beta Command Ref (can't find this instruction) (1997)