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
