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=20address, it shouldn't hurt anything. They can only enter=20once a month anyway, and you are already checking that=20they haven't entered that month. This way you wouldn't=20even have to do that check. I assume you run the drawing=20based on the entry date, so this wouldn't hurt that=20either. In fact it would keep your db smaller.TerryOn Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:46:45 -0400 Steve Raslevich =20wrote:> 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:

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)

If you use [replace append=3Dt] and look for the email=20address, it shouldn't hurt anything. They can only enter=20once a month anyway, and you are already checking that=20they haven't entered that month. This way you wouldn't=20even have to do that check. I assume you run the drawing=20based on the entry date, so this wouldn't hurt that=20either. In fact it would keep your db smaller.TerryOn Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:46:45 -0400 Steve Raslevich =20wrote:> 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!

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

2010

Top Articles:

Related Readings: