× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: In defense of the lowly MR
  • From: Buck Calabro <mcalabro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:41:53 -0400

>>> The computing public has come to expect real-time databases, and by not
>>> deleting children records you run the risk of serving your users dirty 
>data..
>>
>>By using joined master, childern logicals, the orphaned children are
>>excluded and do not provide misleading hash totals.  "Real-time" is a
>>perception of data presentation, not necessarily of data retainage..
>
>The problem is; you (we) are no longer the sole arbiter of data
>presentation.  Data users now have query tools, ODBC, file transfer, etc..
>The data you once gaurded so jealously can now be strewn across a far-flung
>network of disparate systems where your presentation techniques are not
>acknowledged.  No, the database has to contain the whole "truth", and not
>rely on clever programming in order to be interpretted correctly..

I'm 100% in agreement here.  Well said!

>>> 
>>> No need to lock a record that you're not prepared to change immently.  As
>>> long as you don't lock on every read, locks are nothing to be afraid of..
>>
>>I believe by nature a UP processed file would lock each record as it
>>went..
>
>Then why use UP?  Better to use IF and UF versions of the same file, and
>only read records with the IF version until precisely before you're ready to
>update.  You have no way to prevent a user from bringing a record up on
>screen and then running off to a two hour meeting, but you can, and should,
>prevent them from holding a record lock for that two hours..
>
>JMHO, of course..

UP files work very well for batch jobs, where by definition you can't lock a 
record for a long time.  I'd never consider UP for interactive work.  I'd 
rather use UF with a CHAIN (no lock) for the "get" part of the app, then CHAIN 
(lock) for the "update" part.  Now, of course, we have the "record changed in 
the interim" problem to contend with...

Buck Calabro
Commsoft
mcalabro@commsoft.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.