I forgotten to say that the same piece of code works fine in Clipper 5.2e+DBFNTX and in Harbour+DBFCDX. Maybe the opportunistic lock take a rule in that? TIA. Maurizio
Maurizio la Cecilia wrote: > > Sorry for reopening a very old and OT thread, but my needs are quite the > same as Viktor's one and i think something changed after 2005. > > I ported successfully a large clipper 5.2e application, working on many > networks, to Harbour 2.0. > Now, before to swap the installation to Harbour version, i would to test > the effectiveness of the job using one or few Harbour workstation > concurrently with old Clipper ones on the same network. > > Thus, i changed the Clipper app to use the DBFCDX driver and compiled > Harbour using the same driver and setting the locking scheme to CLIP (not > CLIP53). The adopted code is: > > REQUEST DBFCDX > RDDSetDefault("DBFCDX") > RddInfo( RDDI_LOCKSCHEME, DB_DBFLOCK_CLIP ) > > REQUEST HB_LANG_IT > REQUEST HB_CODEPAGE_IT850 > hb_cdpSelect('IT850') > hb_LangSelect('IT') > > Apart of a dirty Clipper problem about the compound indexes (i posted > yesterday a message on the google clipper group) solved using the INDEX > command in place of the OrdCondSet()/OrdCreate() pair, the program crashes > only in one function, giving a "lock required" error after a successfully > lock of the same record. The strange thing is that the flow is apparently > the same of other parts of the application working fine. > > Thus, i'm thinking that i gone wrong in some configuration option or i'm > ignoring some bug of the adopted implementation. > Ther'is any hint about the DBFCDX driver coexistence? Ther'is another > better path to try (not SQL based, as i need to mantain DBF approach > before quitting old Clipper world). > TIA. > Maurizio > > > Szakáts Viktor (Syenar) wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Not strictly a developer question, but could anyone advise >> me, if the (x)Harbour CDX RDD is ready/recommended for >> heavy-duty live networked usage at the current stage? >> >> I'd like to put some Harbour compiled (win32) systems into >> live testing (first with 2-3 concurrent users), and I'd like to >> avoid database/index corruption. >> >> Is the locking method in (x)Harbour CDX compatible with >> CA-Clipper 5.2e? (I'm using SIXCDX actually) >> >> Any stories and opinions are very welcome. >> >> Brgds, >> Viktor >> >> PS: ADS is not an option for me. >> _______________________________________________ >> Harbour mailing list >> Harbour@harbour-project.org >> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/CDX-RDD-question-%28live-usage-compatibility%29-tp990465p27319051.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour