From COMIX to Advantage

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:12 am

Is it possible to change from COMIX to Advantage and if yes is there much source to change?

Thanks in advance
Otto

Badara Thiam · Post by **Badara Thiam** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:53 am

I have not tested the last version of Advantage.

With DOS applications, this work.
With Fivewin 16 bits, this seems to work also
but you need make fews changes in some functions.

Sample : change DBSEEK(), DBGOTO(), DBGOTOP(), DBGOBOTTOM()
by others function who ask to this functions with add SysRefresh()
like this :

****************
FUNCTION SeekDb(uVar, lSoftSeek )
****************
LOCAL lReturn
SysRefresh()
lReturn := DBSEEK(uVar, lSoftSeek)
SysRefresh()
RETURN lReturn

I am testing this on network and this seem to be better
than call directly DBSEEK(), independently of the use of Advantage.

I think it's good to create your owns generic functions
to be able to interchange easily yours RDDs.

Regards,

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:48 pm

Thank you for your answer.

May I ask you an other question.

Today I tried to access a dbf-file from an application with ADS-localServer. And then with a FW program.

Does this mean ADS-localServer does not "import" the dbf-files into a
server and that you can access a dbf-file from FW with COMIX and at the otherhand with an other program with ADS?

Regards
Otto

Badara Thiam · Post by **Badara Thiam** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:34 am

If you keep the same memo block size than ADS, the dbf files
are the same between ADS and Comix. But i have read this in ADS
documentation : the system locking is different, and because this
you can not use at the same time ADS RDD with an application
and Comix in other application, for the same database.

Regards,

Badara Thiam · Post by **Badara Thiam** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:11 am

Hello,

Clipper 5.3b with FW 2.5 is compatible with ADS 8.0 !

Regards

R.F. · Post by **R.F.** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:53 pm

Badara Thiam wrote:If you keep the same memo block size than ADS, the dbf files
are the same between ADS and Comix. But i have read this in ADS
documentation : the system locking is different, and because this
you can not use at the same time ADS RDD with an application
and Comix in other application, for the same database.

Of course you can, simply add ADSLocking (.F.) (harbour) or AX_Locking (.F.) for Clipper and you can share data with both applications.

BTW, ADS under (x)Harbour works like a dream, much better than under Clipper.

Badara Thiam · Post by **Badara Thiam** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:01 am

Of course you can, simply add ADSLocking (.F.) (harbour) or AX_Locking (.F.) for Clipper and you can share data with both applications.

You can, but what is the performance and the limit ?

BTW, ADS under (x)Harbour works like a dream, much better than under Clipper.

Perhaps, i can't verify, i have just the obsolete FWH 2.5 version.

"Harbour, the futur of Clipper..." (Tomorrow)

Regards,

Gale FORd · Post by **Gale FORd** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:19 pm

If you have UDF in index or indexed on related table it might not be supported by Advantage server.

R.F. · Post by **R.F.** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:34 pm

Gale FORd wrote:If you have UDF in index or indexed on related table it might not be supported by Advantage server.

Of course it's suppoorted, but you need to do a simply trick:

Add a new field in your database and when replacing data, replace it with:

REPLACE newfield WITH UDF (value)

And then build a simple index over the newfield, and you are done now you can search over the new indexed field, and ADS will support it without any problem.

R.F. · Post by **R.F.** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:44 pm

Badara Thiam wrote:
You can, but what is the performance and the limit ?

You wont notice anything, what is really happening is that you move the locking schema to be performed by the client machine, not by the server.

When letting the server to handle the locking schema you will never get the FLOCK() to .T., because the lock is done by the server, and the server handles the connection stuff, using compatible locking, it's highly probably that the FLOCK() function returns eventually a .T.

Badara Thiam wrote: Perhaps, i can't verify, i have just the obsolete FWH 2.5 version.

"Harbour, the futur of Clipper..." (Tomorrow)

Regards,

Well all our systems are running under ADS and FWH 2.5 Ford is one of our most important customers and the IT departament of Ford Motor Company Mexico, has certficated our systems with a 96.3% of quality asurance, all thanks ADS.:

Detlef Hoefner · Post by **Detlef Hoefner** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:22 pm

Hello Rene,

RF wrote: ...Well all our systems are running under ADS and FWH 2.5 Ford is one of our most important customers and the IT departament of Ford Motor Company Mexico, has certficated our systems with a 96.3% of quality asurance, all thanks ADS.:

Congratulations to this certification.

You point out the great power of xHarbour in conjunction with FWH and ADS.

Best regards,
Detlef

R.F. · Post by **R.F.** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:21 pm

Detlef:

Thanks, actually we use ADS in the most of our old customers who have enourmous DBF files, we have a customer having over 70 million records in a single DBF.

These are snap shots of the ADS Server working hard in a Ford office, all the software is done with FWH 2.5, some modules are still Clipper 5.3 and the internet stuff is done via ASP:

Detlef Hoefner · Post by **Detlef Hoefner** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:47 pm

Rene,

this really impressive.

I must tell this to my boss who always has doubts about those in his opinion outdated tools like Clipper, xHarbour, FWH and ADS.

Thanks for your info.

Best regards,
Detlef

Badara Thiam · Post by **Badara Thiam** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:15 am

Rene,

What you say surprise me : i have found a big bug in Harbour ASC() function last year and, except if you have modified your FWH 2.5,
this version is obsolete.

I cannot use this version because link error unresolved external HB_STACK with next Harbour upgrades.

Regards,

James Bott · Post by **James Bott** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:39 pm

Badara,

I reported the ASC() bug a long time ago, and it was fixed. If you don't want to upgrade, you can always write your own ASC() function to replace Harbour's.

I highly recommend upgrading though. Lots of other bugs have been fixed and new features added.

James