Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Thanks - sounds usefull. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of John Hester Sent: 28 April 2011 20:41 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion I realize this thread is a little old, but I just came across this Rocket press release dated yesterday that might be of interest. They've released an "Automated Migration Tool" that may include free remote support (based on # of users migrated): http://www.dbta.com/Articles/Editorial/News-Flashes/Rocket-U2-Launches-M igration-Factory-for-Moving-Legacy-Solutions-to-U2--75174.aspx It says an app running on any other MV database qualifies as a candidate. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:14 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3602 - Release Date: 04/28/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
I realize this thread is a little old, but I just came across this Rocket press release dated yesterday that might be of interest. They've released an "Automated Migration Tool" that may include free remote support (based on # of users migrated): http://www.dbta.com/Articles/Editorial/News-Flashes/Rocket-U2-Launches-M igration-Factory-for-Moving-Legacy-Solutions-to-U2--75174.aspx It says an app running on any other MV database qualifies as a candidate. -John -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:14 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
I have been involved in a number of migrations. I have stubbed my toes on several issues. Printers Assembly language code/C++/ what ever foreign external code Interface to external devices, scanners, funny printers/plotters, etc. The issues of printers is the most common. Users and developers are use to seeing printers react in a certain manner and when they don't react as expected it can derail an entire migrations. I had one client that refused to test every printer, as recommended, and had to cancel the scheduled cut over because they could only address 64 of their 200 printers at one time. If you are using a spooler, check with the developer to be sure it will work on the new platform, if you can still find the developer. HTH Tom Dodds t...@ix.netcom.com 630.235.2975 On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:04 AM, fft2...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/15/2011 5:43:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > u...@edclark.net writes: > >> But then we decided we wanted to upgrade the universe system and have all >> our accounting users on that. Just about everything else was ok, but it >> took the var 3 months of work to convert the procs to work on universe. > > Can you explain a bit more this statement about Procs and Universe ? > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
I don't remember all exact details. The biggest problem had to do with universe proc treating backslash as a special character. They used one or the other as a delimiter in data that they passed around, and proc ate it. It was something line this: 0001 PQ 0002 RI 0003 IHA\B\C 0004 F 0005 IH1\2\3 0006 HDISPLAY 0007 A\1 0008 A\2 0009 P On d3 this displays A\B\C1\2\3 but on universe it displays A1. Backslash is nothing special in d3's IH command, but in universe it clears the rest of the proc buffer entry. They had lots of programs that generated procs, and needed to track down not only everywhere procs were generated, but also everywhere they used the backslash as a delimiter in basic programs. Another issue was that D3 proc uses spaces to delimit entries in the proc buffers, but universe uses attribute marks. This affects some details about how spaces are trimmed when the buffers are executed. There are some other gotchas that I don't remember offhand. In many places, universe's PQ proc works more like Reality's extended PQN proc. On Apr 15, 2011, at 11:04 AM, fft2...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/15/2011 5:43:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > u...@edclark.net writes: > >> But then we decided we wanted to upgrade the universe system and have all >> our accounting users on that. Just about everything else was ok, but it >> took the var 3 months of work to convert the procs to work on universe. > > Can you explain a bit more this statement about Procs and Universe ? > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
In a message dated 4/15/2011 5:43:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, u...@edclark.net writes: > But then we decided we wanted to upgrade the universe system and have all > our accounting users on that. Just about everything else was ok, but it > took the var 3 months of work to convert the procs to work on universe. Can you explain a bit more this statement about Procs and Universe ? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
A lot of people used to code their applications to "R83" or least common
denominator. The company I worked for 15 years ago had a mix of Adds Mentor,
Stratus OA, Power95 and a small universe system at a satellite office. We
bought a new accounting system that was written to R83. The vendor was a var
for Mentor and favored that, but their system easily installed and ran on the
Stratus and Power95 systems as well. But then we decided we wanted to upgrade
the universe system and have all our accounting users on that. Just about
everything else was ok, but it took the var 3 months of work to convert the
procs to work on universe. (but oh my god it was worth the wait. I recoded some
of their app and our core application to take advantage of universe's type 25
btree files and then the user experience was literally a million times faster)
Then there are the little time bombs like:
A=CONVERT('ABC','C','XABCX')
On universe or unidata this is the equivalent of
CONVERT 'ABC' TO 'C' IN 'XABCX'
and A='XCX' but on d3 it is
CONVERT 'C' TO 'XABCX' IN 'ABC'
and A='ABX'
You may convert the application in a few hours, but you'll be debugging it for
months :) Or it might just work. The only big snag in the accounting
application I mentioned (and it was a large app with lots of programs) was proc.
On Apr 14, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Charles Barouch wrote:
> Depends on how 'vanilla it is. I worked in a shop where the owners would
> routineky sell the dev systems out from under us and we'd have to pick up on
> whatever they bought as a substitute.
> That package was easy to port because everything was coded assuming least
> common denominator approach.
>
>
> Charles Barouch
>
> Don Robinson wrote:
>
>> Symeon,
>>
>> Hum, I'd offer the guy $200.00 to do the job if he thinks it's that easy!
>>
>> I've worked on a couple of conversion between MV systems and there are a lot
>> of
>> differences. In my opinion D3 if very different from Unidata or Universe or
>> jBASE or Reality or you name it.
>>
>> I just inherited a D3 system and it's awful switching between it and
>> Universe
>> because of all the differences.
>>
>> Not to disappoint you, just my 2 cents.
>>
>> Don Robinson
>> Universe and D3 programmer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Symeon Breen
>> To: U2 Users List
>> Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 5:14:15 PM
>> Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion
>>
>> Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written
>> in databasic on D3 to run on unidata.
>>
>>
>>
>> The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure
>> myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Symeon.
>>
>> ___
>> U2-Users mailing list
>> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
>> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>> ___
>> U2-Users mailing list
>> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
>> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> ___
> U2-Users mailing list
> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
___
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Depends on how 'vanilla it is. I worked in a shop where the owners would routineky sell the dev systems out from under us and we'd have to pick up on whatever they bought as a substitute. That package was easy to port because everything was coded assuming least common denominator approach. Charles Barouch Don Robinson wrote: >Symeon, > >Hum, I'd offer the guy $200.00 to do the job if he thinks it's that easy! > >I've worked on a couple of conversion between MV systems and there are a lot >of >differences. In my opinion D3 if very different from Unidata or Universe or >jBASE or Reality or you name it. > >I just inherited a D3 system and it's awful switching between it and Universe >because of all the differences. > >Not to disappoint you, just my 2 cents. > >Don Robinson >Universe and D3 programmer. > > > > >From: Symeon Breen >To: U2 Users List >Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 5:14:15 PM >Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion > >Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written >in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. > > > >The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure >myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? > > > > > >Cheers > >Symeon. > >___ >U2-Users mailing list >U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >___ >U2-Users mailing list >U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Symeon, Hum, I'd offer the guy $200.00 to do the job if he thinks it's that easy! I've worked on a couple of conversion between MV systems and there are a lot of differences. In my opinion D3 if very different from Unidata or Universe or jBASE or Reality or you name it. I just inherited a D3 system and it's awful switching between it and Universe because of all the differences. Not to disappoint you, just my 2 cents. Don Robinson Universe and D3 programmer. From: Symeon Breen To: U2 Users List Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 5:14:15 PM Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
On 11/04/11 13:03, Mecki Foerthmann wrote: > Symeon, > > I am afraid you are wrong. > TigerLogic actually have an office in the UK (Buckinghamshire). > And unlike Rocket they also have offices in France and Germany. > Just go to their website and click on Contact us and you will see where > you can find them. > Actually, having personally been to TigerLogic's office, I would agree with Symeon. TigerLogic DON'T (afaik) "really have much of a corporate presence". The operative word here is "much". From memory, the UK, French AND German operations consist of little more than a secretary and couple of developers each. That might be a little unfair, as the developers are full-blown developers, part of the team and fully capable of modifying the master tree (unlike some companies, where the European Offices merely feed issues back to the "master team" in the states) who just happen to be located over here, but the reality is as Symeon says - their presence over here is minimal. Cheers, Wol > > On 11/04/2011 09:23, Symeon Breen wrote: >> Tony RE why Unidata instead of Pick >> >> >> >> Well Tony I don’t live in rainy California, but in sunny England ;) , >> Unidata/Vmark/Ardent/IBM/Rocket have always had a very strong corporate >> presence here – The Uk and the US have always been the major MV centres, and >> in the UK SystemBuilder, Vmark, Unidata, Prime, Jbase, Reality, Cache, QM >> all had corporate headquarters or a large corporate presence in the UK. I >> may be wrong but i don’t think Pick systems/Raining Data have ever really >> had much of a corporate presence here. TBH I don’t know of any UK vars even, >> tho I am sure there are some. So the upshot is, I have never been involved >> with them much at all. I know many of the jbase/reality/U2 guys but no one >> from Pick. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org >> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno >> Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 >> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >> Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion >> >> >> >>> From: Mecki Foerthmann >>> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >>> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think >>> it's a real pain in the neck. >>> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first >> printouts (i.e. >>> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( >> Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I >> consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over >> other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get >> the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV >> environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we >> should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the >> difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which >> is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some >> flavors in U2. >> >> So just to balance it out. Some people swear at >> case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. >> >> WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I >> immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett >> was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to >> Unidata. YMMV >> >> Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain >> why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they >> chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a >> migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and >> as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical >> benefits at all. >> >> Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for >> migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM >> name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to >> compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself >> on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't >> see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good >> software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't >> see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other >> these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge >> is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already >> made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take >> an obvious position, but be pr
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Pick had an office in Chalfont St Peter, I guess it's the same one. But there are very few D3 sites in the UK, I only know of one and I don't know of any VARs still selling on D3. In our experience D3 is no longer much of a force in the UK. Outside the US U2 is sold through distributors, so there is a Rocket U2 presence in the UK, Switzerland, France, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Australia and Japan all of which offer local sales and support services. George Land APT Solutions Ltd U2 UK Distributor On 11/04/2011 13:03, "Mecki Foerthmann" wrote: > Symeon, > > I am afraid you are wrong. > TigerLogic actually have an office in the UK (Buckinghamshire). > And unlike Rocket they also have offices in France and Germany. > Just go to their website and click on Contact us and you will see where > you can find them. > > > On 11/04/2011 09:23, Symeon Breen wrote: >> Tony RE why Unidata instead of Pick >> >> >> >> Well Tony I don¹t live in rainy California, but in sunny England ;) , >> Unidata/Vmark/Ardent/IBM/Rocket have always had a very strong corporate >> presence here The Uk and the US have always been the major MV centres, and >> in the UK SystemBuilder, Vmark, Unidata, Prime, Jbase, Reality, Cache, QM >> all had corporate headquarters or a large corporate presence in the UK. I >> may be wrong but i don¹t think Pick systems/Raining Data have ever really >> had much of a corporate presence here. TBH I don¹t know of any UK vars even, >> tho I am sure there are some. So the upshot is, I have never been involved >> with them much at all. I know many of the jbase/reality/U2 guys but no one >> from Pick. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org >> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno >> Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 >> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >> Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion >> >> >> >>> From: Mecki Foerthmann >>> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >>> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think >>> it's a real pain in the neck. >>> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first >> printouts (i.e. >>> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( >> Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I >> consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over >> other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get >> the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV >> environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we >> should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the >> difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which >> is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some >> flavors in U2. >> >> So just to balance it out. Some people swear at >> case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. >> >> WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I >> immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett >> was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to >> Unidata. YMMV >> >> Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain >> why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they >> chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a >> migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and >> as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical >> benefits at all. >> >> Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for >> migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM >> name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to >> compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself >> on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't >> see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good >> software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't >> see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other >> these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge >> is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already >> made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take >> an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests >> for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why >> any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. >>
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion [AD]
Intersystems has a presence in the UK as well. Probably one that will grow some since NHS Scotland is going to be running their Patient Management System on Cache. On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Tony RE why Unidata instead of Pick > > > > Well Tony I don’t live in rainy California, but in sunny England ;) , > Unidata/Vmark/Ardent/IBM/Rocket have always had a very strong corporate > presence here – The Uk and the US have always been the major MV centres, and > in the UK SystemBuilder, Vmark, Unidata, Prime, Jbase, Reality, Cache, QM > all had corporate headquarters or a large corporate presence in the UK. I > may be wrong but i don’t think Pick systems/Raining Data have ever really > had much of a corporate presence here. TBH I don’t know of any UK vars even, > tho I am sure there are some. So the upshot is, I have never been involved > with them much at all. I know many of the jbase/reality/U2 guys but no one > from Pick. > > > > > > > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno > Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > > > >> From: Mecki Foerthmann >> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think >> it's a real pain in the neck. >> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first > printouts (i.e. >> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( > > Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I > consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over > other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get > the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV > environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we > should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the > difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which > is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some > flavors in U2. > > So just to balance it out. Some people swear at > case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. > > WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I > immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett > was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to > Unidata. YMMV > > Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain > why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they > chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a > migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and > as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical > benefits at all. > > Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for > migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM > name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to > compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself > on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't > see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good > software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't > see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other > these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge > is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already > made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take > an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests > for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why > any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. > > T > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3557 - Release Date: 04/07/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Good news indeed. From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Mecki Foerthmann Sent: 11 April 2011 13:03 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion Symeon, I am afraid you are wrong. TigerLogic actually have an office in the UK (Buckinghamshire). And unlike Rocket they also have offices in France and Germany. Just go to their website and click on Contact us and you will see where you can find them. On 11/04/2011 09:23, Symeon Breen wrote: > Tony RE why Unidata instead of Pick > > > > Well Tony I dont live in rainy California, but in sunny England ;) , > Unidata/Vmark/Ardent/IBM/Rocket have always had a very strong corporate > presence here The Uk and the US have always been the major MV centres, and > in the UK SystemBuilder, Vmark, Unidata, Prime, Jbase, Reality, Cache, QM > all had corporate headquarters or a large corporate presence in the UK. I > may be wrong but i dont think Pick systems/Raining Data have ever really > had much of a corporate presence here. TBH I dont know of any UK vars even, > tho I am sure there are some. So the upshot is, I have never been involved > with them much at all. I know many of the jbase/reality/U2 guys but no one > from Pick. > > > > > > > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno > Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > > > >> From: Mecki Foerthmann >> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think >> it's a real pain in the neck. >> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first > printouts (i.e. >> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( > Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I > consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over > other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get > the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV > environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we > should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the > difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which > is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some > flavors in U2. > > So just to balance it out. Some people swear at > case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. > > WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I > immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett > was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to > Unidata. YMMV > > Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain > why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they > chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a > migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and > as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical > benefits at all. > > Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for > migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM > name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to > compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself > on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't > see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good > software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't > see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other > these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge > is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already > made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take > an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests > for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why > any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. > > T > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3557 - Release Date: 04/07/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3564 - Release Date: 04/10/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Symeon, I am afraid you are wrong. TigerLogic actually have an office in the UK (Buckinghamshire). And unlike Rocket they also have offices in France and Germany. Just go to their website and click on Contact us and you will see where you can find them. On 11/04/2011 09:23, Symeon Breen wrote: > Tony RE why Unidata instead of Pick > > > > Well Tony I don’t live in rainy California, but in sunny England ;) , > Unidata/Vmark/Ardent/IBM/Rocket have always had a very strong corporate > presence here – The Uk and the US have always been the major MV centres, and > in the UK SystemBuilder, Vmark, Unidata, Prime, Jbase, Reality, Cache, QM > all had corporate headquarters or a large corporate presence in the UK. I > may be wrong but i don’t think Pick systems/Raining Data have ever really > had much of a corporate presence here. TBH I don’t know of any UK vars even, > tho I am sure there are some. So the upshot is, I have never been involved > with them much at all. I know many of the jbase/reality/U2 guys but no one > from Pick. > > > > > > > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno > Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > > > >> From: Mecki Foerthmann >> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think >> it's a real pain in the neck. >> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first > printouts (i.e. >> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( > Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I > consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over > other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get > the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV > environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we > should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the > difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which > is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some > flavors in U2. > > So just to balance it out. Some people swear at > case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. > > WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I > immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett > was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to > Unidata. YMMV > > Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain > why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they > chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a > migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and > as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical > benefits at all. > > Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for > migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM > name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to > compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself > on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't > see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good > software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't > see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other > these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge > is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already > made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take > an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests > for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why > any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. > > T > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3557 - Release Date: 04/07/11 > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Tony RE why Unidata instead of Pick Well Tony I dont live in rainy California, but in sunny England ;) , Unidata/Vmark/Ardent/IBM/Rocket have always had a very strong corporate presence here The Uk and the US have always been the major MV centres, and in the UK SystemBuilder, Vmark, Unidata, Prime, Jbase, Reality, Cache, QM all had corporate headquarters or a large corporate presence in the UK. I may be wrong but i dont think Pick systems/Raining Data have ever really had much of a corporate presence here. TBH I dont know of any UK vars even, tho I am sure there are some. So the upshot is, I have never been involved with them much at all. I know many of the jbase/reality/U2 guys but no one from Pick. From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > From: Mecki Foerthmann > AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. > I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think > it's a real pain in the neck. > Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. > invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some flavors in U2. So just to balance it out. Some people swear at case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to Unidata. YMMV Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical benefits at all. Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3557 - Release Date: 04/07/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
[AD] Or, with reference to Ed's Item No. 3 below: Use SpoolerPlus from Sysmark Information Systems, Inc., to add a Pick-like spooler to Universe, Unidata or QM. Dave Taylor Sysmark Information Systems, Inc. 49 Aspen Way Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (O) 800-SYSMARK (800-797-6275) (F) 310-377-3550 (C) 310-561-5200 www.sysmarkinfo.com - Original Message - From: "Ed Clark" To: "U2 Users List" Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion I'm guessing that you are converting from d3 to unidata because you are most familiar with unidata? (and less so with d3). Or is there some other benefit of moving the application to unidata specifically? If you aren't tied to unidata, consider Intersystems Cache. D3 migrations to Cache go pretty quickly. Things to be aware of (from d3 to any other system): 1: D3 is case-insensitive by default. In D3 "ANYTHING"="anyThing". This can be a deal-breaker. 2: D3 applications (especially older ones) are used to having a lot of control of the machine via D3 commands. On unidata and other systems you need to use OS commands. 3: D3 has a rich spooler. Controlling printing on unidata or universe will be very different. 4: In dictionaries, D3 only supports A-types. Unidata (as far as I know) only supports D and V/I types. So every dict item would need to be converted. This in itself could be a couple of months work depending on how the app uses queries. Cache and universe support both types, so would make for a much easier conversion. On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
> From: Ed Clark > How would you run unidata in case insensitive mode so that > "ABC"="abc"? For A/S types, an old trick is to put a mask in both the conversion and the correlative: 007 MCT 008 MCT So the query WITH FOO="aBc" will match any stored data and even output as "Abc". That doesn't respond to the larger problem of getting the DBMS to do this automatically but it does solve the problem on a case by case basis. I explain how this works in my blog: remove.pleaseNebula-rnd.com/blog/tech/mv/2007/01/dict-items01.htm l Good seeing you here, Ed. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Thought so. So back to Symeon's original question--converting from D3 to unidata could be quite an experience lasting much more than just a couple of hours :) Try Cache. (or universe). On Apr 8, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Robert Houben wrote: > It doesn't. You have to convert. If you have F or A correlatives, you may > wish to consider something other than Unidata as the target to convert to. > Universe supports them just fine. > > -Original Message- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org > [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ed Clark > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:30 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > > I might be missing something simple and obvious but don't see unidata > supporting a-type dict entries: > > :ECLTYPE P > :AE DICT DICTTEST ATEST > Top of "ATEST" in "DICT DICTTEST", 10 lines, 16 characters. > *--: P > 001: A > 002: 1 > 003: A1 > 004: > 005: > 006: > 007: > 008: > 009: L > 010: 10 > Bottom. > *--: EX > Quit "ATEST" in file "DICT DICTTEST" unchanged. > : > :LIST DICTTEST ATEST > > Illegal attribute name: ATEST > > What am I missing? > > How would you run unidata in case insensitive mode so that "ABC"="abc"? > On Apr 7, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Mecki Foerthmann wrote: > >> Ed, Unidata has always supported A-types and still does, so no >> conversion to I-types is necessary. >> I am pretty sure S-types also work - it has been a while, though :-) . >> >> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think it's a >> real pain in the neck. >> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. >> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( >> >> >> On 07/04/2011 15:44, Ed Clark wrote: >>> I'm guessing that you are converting from d3 to unidata because you are >>> most familiar with unidata? (and less so with d3). Or is there some other >>> benefit of moving the application to unidata specifically? If you aren't >>> tied to unidata, consider Intersystems Cache. D3 migrations to Cache go >>> pretty quickly. >>> >>> Things to be aware of (from d3 to any other system): >>> >>> 1: D3 is case-insensitive by default. In D3 "ANYTHING"="anyThing". This can >>> be a deal-breaker. >>> >>> 2: D3 applications (especially older ones) are used to having a lot of >>> control of the machine via D3 commands. On unidata and other systems you >>> need to use OS commands. >>> >>> 3: D3 has a rich spooler. Controlling printing on unidata or universe will >>> be very different. >>> >>> 4: In dictionaries, D3 only supports A-types. Unidata (as far as I know) >>> only supports D and V/I types. So every dict item would need to be >>> converted. This in itself could be a couple of months work depending on how >>> the app uses queries. Cache and universe support both types, so would make >>> for a much easier conversion. >>> >>> On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: >>> >>>> Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system >>>> written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so >>>> sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Symeon. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> U2-Users mailing list >>>> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >>>> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >>> ___ >>> U2-Users mailing list >>> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >>> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >>> >> ___ >> U2-Users mailing list >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
It doesn't. You have to convert. If you have F or A correlatives, you may wish to consider something other than Unidata as the target to convert to. Universe supports them just fine. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ed Clark Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:30 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion I might be missing something simple and obvious but don't see unidata supporting a-type dict entries: :ECLTYPE P :AE DICT DICTTEST ATEST Top of "ATEST" in "DICT DICTTEST", 10 lines, 16 characters. *--: P 001: A 002: 1 003: A1 004: 005: 006: 007: 008: 009: L 010: 10 Bottom. *--: EX Quit "ATEST" in file "DICT DICTTEST" unchanged. : :LIST DICTTEST ATEST Illegal attribute name: ATEST What am I missing? How would you run unidata in case insensitive mode so that "ABC"="abc"? On Apr 7, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Mecki Foerthmann wrote: > Ed, Unidata has always supported A-types and still does, so no > conversion to I-types is necessary. > I am pretty sure S-types also work - it has been a while, though :-) . > > AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. > I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think it's a > real pain in the neck. > Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. > invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( > > > On 07/04/2011 15:44, Ed Clark wrote: >> I'm guessing that you are converting from d3 to unidata because you are most >> familiar with unidata? (and less so with d3). Or is there some other benefit >> of moving the application to unidata specifically? If you aren't tied to >> unidata, consider Intersystems Cache. D3 migrations to Cache go pretty >> quickly. >> >> Things to be aware of (from d3 to any other system): >> >> 1: D3 is case-insensitive by default. In D3 "ANYTHING"="anyThing". This can >> be a deal-breaker. >> >> 2: D3 applications (especially older ones) are used to having a lot of >> control of the machine via D3 commands. On unidata and other systems you >> need to use OS commands. >> >> 3: D3 has a rich spooler. Controlling printing on unidata or universe will >> be very different. >> >> 4: In dictionaries, D3 only supports A-types. Unidata (as far as I know) >> only supports D and V/I types. So every dict item would need to be >> converted. This in itself could be a couple of months work depending on how >> the app uses queries. Cache and universe support both types, so would make >> for a much easier conversion. >> >> On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: >> >>> Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system >>> written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. >>> >>> >>> >>> The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so >>> sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Symeon. >>> >>> ___ >>> U2-Users mailing list >>> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >>> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> ___ >> U2-Users mailing list >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
I might be missing something simple and obvious but don't see unidata supporting a-type dict entries: :ECLTYPE P :AE DICT DICTTEST ATEST Top of "ATEST" in "DICT DICTTEST", 10 lines, 16 characters. *--: P 001: A 002: 1 003: A1 004: 005: 006: 007: 008: 009: L 010: 10 Bottom. *--: EX Quit "ATEST" in file "DICT DICTTEST" unchanged. : :LIST DICTTEST ATEST Illegal attribute name: ATEST What am I missing? How would you run unidata in case insensitive mode so that "ABC"="abc"? On Apr 7, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Mecki Foerthmann wrote: > Ed, Unidata has always supported A-types and still does, so no > conversion to I-types is necessary. > I am pretty sure S-types also work - it has been a while, though :-) . > > AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. > I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think it's a real > pain in the neck. > Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. > invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( > > > On 07/04/2011 15:44, Ed Clark wrote: >> I'm guessing that you are converting from d3 to unidata because you are most >> familiar with unidata? (and less so with d3). Or is there some other benefit >> of moving the application to unidata specifically? If you aren't tied to >> unidata, consider Intersystems Cache. D3 migrations to Cache go pretty >> quickly. >> >> Things to be aware of (from d3 to any other system): >> >> 1: D3 is case-insensitive by default. In D3 "ANYTHING"="anyThing". This can >> be a deal-breaker. >> >> 2: D3 applications (especially older ones) are used to having a lot of >> control of the machine via D3 commands. On unidata and other systems you >> need to use OS commands. >> >> 3: D3 has a rich spooler. Controlling printing on unidata or universe will >> be very different. >> >> 4: In dictionaries, D3 only supports A-types. Unidata (as far as I know) >> only supports D and V/I types. So every dict item would need to be >> converted. This in itself could be a couple of months work depending on how >> the app uses queries. Cache and universe support both types, so would make >> for a much easier conversion. >> >> On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: >> >>> Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written >>> in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. >>> >>> >>> >>> The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure >>> myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Symeon. >>> >>> ___ >>> U2-Users mailing list >>> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >>> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> ___ >> U2-Users mailing list >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
RE Case everything in life is case sensitive your CV, a letter to the bank manager, linux/unix, .net, java, php, pearl , There are some things which are rather inconsistent in case sensitivity like windows and sql server and these are just annoying. A does not equal a just as 65 does not equal 97. From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: 08 April 2011 00:59 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > From: Mecki Foerthmann > AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. > I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think > it's a real pain in the neck. > Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. > invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some flavors in U2. So just to balance it out. Some people swear at case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to Unidata. YMMV Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical benefits at all. Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3557 - Release Date: 04/07/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Tony, I don't mind case in-sensitivity in Basic, it actually can make code more readable, but case-insensitive data can be a real pain. On 08/04/2011 00:58, Tony Gravagno wrote: >> From: Mecki Foerthmann >> AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. >> I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think >> it's a real pain in the neck. >> Sounded great to start with but when you see the first > printouts (i.e. >> invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( > Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I > consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over > other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get > the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV > environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we > should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the > difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which > is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some > flavors in U2. > > So just to balance it out. Some people swear at > case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. > > WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I > immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett > was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to > Unidata. YMMV > > Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain > why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they > chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a > migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and > as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical > benefits at all. > > Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for > migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM > name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to > compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself > on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't > see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good > software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't > see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other > these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge > is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already > made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take > an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests > for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why > any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. > > T > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
My response Tony was related to your paragraph: " But I don't see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other these days." Perhaps you meant any other MV Platform. But I read it as ANY other platform. -Original Message- From: Tony Gravagno <3xk547...@sneakemail.com> To: u2-users Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > From: Will Johnson > I think Tony you're missing the Pick calling card which is > the application. Your response was unrelated to my inquiry about porting from other MV platforms to U2. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
> From: Will Johnson > I think Tony you're missing the Pick calling card which is > the application. Your response was unrelated to my inquiry about porting from other MV platforms to U2. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Flame on Johnny Storm. I think Tony you're missing the Pick calling card which is the application. If you have a Pizza shop and are running um... Pizza Warrior 3.5 or whatever and it's crappy And I show you Pizza Hero 6.5 (which just happens to run in Universe) and you think it's super duper. Then you, the business owner, doesn't or shouldn't care what Universe is, as long as my solution is super and probably cheaper. That's the Pick way! Sell to the cheap bastards and then when their hooked keep upping your licensing fees. Dubya "What's your ERP buster?" -Original Message- From: Tony Gravagno <3xk547...@sneakemail.com> To: u2-users Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion > From: Mecki Foerthmann > AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. > I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think > it's a real pain in the neck. > Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. > invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some flavors in U2. So just to balance it out. Some people swear at case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to Unidata. YMMV Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical benefits at all. Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
G-man: I'll add some personal observations here. We moved from D3 to U2 because of cost and stability of the NT product. U2 was (and is) significantly less expensive (especially the Workgroup edition) both in license fees and support fees. U2's device licensing makes the cost disparity even wider between the two products. In addition, the NT implementation was (and probably still is) significantly more stable and faster than D3. As much as I abhor case sensitivity, this wasn't the biggest problem with a D3 to UniData conversion. As I've mentioned before, the recommended conversion path is from D3 to UniVerse, not to UniData! This was confirmed by IBM and U2 engineers. If I had to do our conversion again, I'd be seriously looking at QM and Cache, because "deployment" costs are what make or break moving an MV application to the web (e.g. we're competing with other technologies which are very inexpensive to deploy relative to MV). I'd look at QM to reduce deployment costs and at Cache to reduce both deployment costs and development costs. But then, I don't have any direct experience with either of these products or companies. :-( HTH, Bill - Original Message - *From:* 3xk547...@sneakemail.com *To:* u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org *Date:* 4/7/2011 4:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Databasic conversion From: Mecki Foerthmann AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think it's a real pain in the neck. Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some flavors in U2. So just to balance it out. Some people swear at case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to Unidata. YMMV Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical benefits at all. Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
> From: Mecki Foerthmann > AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. > I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think > it's a real pain in the neck. > Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. > invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( Not to (re)start a war but just present the other side: I consider case-insensitivity to be one strong advantage in D3 over other platforms. I constantly stumble on the requirement to get the casing just right at TCL and elsewhere in some MV environments when it's completely unnecessary and archaic that we should need to stumble on such a thing. Same goes for the difference between dashes and dots (LIST-ITEM vs LIST.ITEM) which is nicely translated for us in QM, Caché, and maybe in some flavors in U2. So just to balance it out. Some people swear at case-insensitivity, but I swear by it. WRT the OP : As soon as I saw the question about D3 to Unidata I immediately thought of the years of pain to which Bill Haskett was subjected. From his experience I swore off ever porting to Unidata. YMMV Symeon, perhaps in another thread (or email) you could explain why a site feels a need to migrate from D3, and then why they chose Unidata. With apologies to the sensitive, I don't think a migration from D3 is justified except for some extreme cases, and as to choosing Unidata, I don't see the business or technical benefits at all. Oh OK, I'll start a holy war. The only compelling reason for migration from a competing platform to U2 _used_ to be the IBM name. That doesn't exist anymore. Now these platforms need to compete on their technical merits and Rocket needs to sell itself on superiority as a business partner. Sorry folks but I don't see any of that. Really - "where's the beef?" U2 is good software and the U2 team at Rocket are good people. But I don't see any compelling reasons to choose this platform over any other these days. The political "can't get fired for buying IBM" edge is gone. Feel free to defend the platform because you've already made the investment and it's politically correct for you to take an obvious position, but be prepared for some pragmatic requests for more compelling reasoning. I'd really like to understand why any site would want to migrate to U2 these days. T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Ed, Unidata has always supported A-types and still does, so no conversion to I-types is necessary. I am pretty sure S-types also work - it has been a while, though :-) . AFAIK UD can be run in case insensitive mode as well. I always turned case-insensitivity off in D3 because I think it's a real pain in the neck. Sounded great to start with but when you see the first printouts (i.e. invoices) you curse yourself if you didn't turn it off.:-( On 07/04/2011 15:44, Ed Clark wrote: > I'm guessing that you are converting from d3 to unidata because you are most > familiar with unidata? (and less so with d3). Or is there some other benefit > of moving the application to unidata specifically? If you aren't tied to > unidata, consider Intersystems Cache. D3 migrations to Cache go pretty > quickly. > > Things to be aware of (from d3 to any other system): > > 1: D3 is case-insensitive by default. In D3 "ANYTHING"="anyThing". This can > be a deal-breaker. > > 2: D3 applications (especially older ones) are used to having a lot of > control of the machine via D3 commands. On unidata and other systems you need > to use OS commands. > > 3: D3 has a rich spooler. Controlling printing on unidata or universe will be > very different. > > 4: In dictionaries, D3 only supports A-types. Unidata (as far as I know) only > supports D and V/I types. So every dict item would need to be converted. This > in itself could be a couple of months work depending on how the app uses > queries. Cache and universe support both types, so would make for a much > easier conversion. > > On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > >> Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written >> in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. >> >> >> >> The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure >> myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Symeon. >> >> ___ >> U2-Users mailing list >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
I'm guessing that you are converting from d3 to unidata because you are most familiar with unidata? (and less so with d3). Or is there some other benefit of moving the application to unidata specifically? If you aren't tied to unidata, consider Intersystems Cache. D3 migrations to Cache go pretty quickly. Things to be aware of (from d3 to any other system): 1: D3 is case-insensitive by default. In D3 "ANYTHING"="anyThing". This can be a deal-breaker. 2: D3 applications (especially older ones) are used to having a lot of control of the machine via D3 commands. On unidata and other systems you need to use OS commands. 3: D3 has a rich spooler. Controlling printing on unidata or universe will be very different. 4: In dictionaries, D3 only supports A-types. Unidata (as far as I know) only supports D and V/I types. So every dict item would need to be converted. This in itself could be a couple of months work depending on how the app uses queries. Cache and universe support both types, so would make for a much easier conversion. On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written > in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. > > > > The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure > myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? > > > > > > Cheers > > Symeon. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
I'd second David's comment. UniVerse in PICK flavour is a closer fit to D3, though some of the issues around casing for files may still bite you (at least UniVerse Basic has always been keyword case insensitive). PROCs and paragraphs should come across fine, remember that paragraphs are PH not H types. Your dictionaries will generally work, but there is no *An equivalent or B correlatives. If you want to call a subroutine from a dictionary you need to use a SUBR() function in an I type. You are better off converting dictionaries to D and I types anyway, they work better with most of the advanced features (e.g. SQL and XML) and there is a conversion program hidden in the APP.PROGS file from what I recall. If you're using flashbasic with % calls, they will need to parsed out and replaced with equivalent functions, and the spooler is quite different. UniVerse supports some of the SP.. commands but frankly you're better off writing your own versions to map to the native SETPTR equivalents. Obviously any device control, terminal and printer settings, anything looking at system files and so forth will be the usual pain to convert. It all depends how vanilla the code is that you will be migrating. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Hona, David Sent: 07 April 2011 12:03 To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion UniVerse PICK flavour account would probably be - out of the box - the path of least resistance. As UniVerse emulates the PICK D3 environment much better than Unidata. Unidata was designed to be a clone of Prime INFORMATION - engineered from the manual up (which including doing this the PI Manual said it could do, but in reality it didn't almost do as published!). Bill H has nicely documented stuff for you already in his post and elsewhere on the Net: http://www.rhinocerus.net/forum/databases-pick/305503-migration-d3-universe- doco.html http://old.nabble.com/RE:-D3-to-U2---how-to-import-a-FileSave-tape-p4361606. html -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:14 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ** IMPORTANT MESSAGE * This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ** ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Hi Symeon -- For what it is worth, in case it is helpful... I did not do a conversion but did do interviews, reading, and tests of a D3 app a while back, recommending the site moved, they would be well-served to choose UniVerse over UniData, although it was still definitely feasible with UniData. I know UniData better than UniVerse and would have preferred to recommend it, but still chose UniVerse. Each application is different, but I suspect that as a general rule it would be faster to migrate from D3 to UniVerse or Cache' than UniData. --dawn On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system > written > in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. > > > > The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure > myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? > > > > > > Cheers > > Symeon. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Take and give some delight today ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Also see Pick.pdf in the Rocket U2 UV11.1 document set. It documents the differences between D3/PICK and UniVerse. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:42 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion Thanks Bill and Mecki. As ever some fantastic information from this group. From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: 06 April 2011 23:31 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion Symeon: I converted our application from D3 to UniData. There was quite a bit of work. I believe I started in Dec 2005 and finished at the end of March 2006 (I had to work a lot of overtime), and beta tested through Aug 2006. We went live with one our clients in Sep 2006 and then 10 more moved over in Nov and Dec 2006. I spent the next six months moving most of the rest of our clients to UniData. I'd say I spent about a thousand man hours on this. It could have been half that, but I had no help from anyone (including IBM/RS) except Colin Alfke in Canada. I have a lot of emails on this, but the following is one in particular. HTH, Bill - Original Message - *From:* Bill Haskett *To:* 'Bob Little' *Date:* 2/28/2006 6:29 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Changes to mail list configurations We're mostly done but have spent about 140 man-days. We spent a fair amount of our time grinding away with the line editor. We were constantly editing data, dictionaries, VOC entries, and BASIC programs. We were able to port a few utilities to UD to help (a TCL shell, a file listing program, a dictionary listing program, and a screen-scroll program). We feel that we could have saved about 30% of our time if there was a decent screen editor, as the productivity was extremely low with the "stone age" line editor (AE). This would have saved us about 40 man-days! We spent about 20% of our time messing around with moving D3 to UV to UD and all subsequent data moves. This would have saved us around 30 man-days. There weren't too many surprises but there were some. Here are the major ones: 1) There was absolutely no interest by IBM in helping us, 2) There were absolutely no utilities to assist in the conversion. When I consulted at a large UD user they had converted from Sequoia several years before and they said there were numerous utilities that converted their dictionaries and BASIC programs. These were unavailable to us. 3) We had to convert to UV first then to UD...well, not actually. We had to move our data to UV, convert the dictionaries, then move to UD. However, we eventually found a utility to restore a D3 account to UniData, which helped tremendously during our client upgrades. 4) There is no (or virtually no) security in U2. It's handled by the O/S. 5) There are no "users" in U2. They're managed by the O/S. 6) UD requires a lot more interaction with the O/S. For instance, since UD has no 'Q' pointers you have to create file pointers using environment variables. In Windows, this requires the creation of the environment variables on the server...very strange. 7) There is no backup facility in UD. 8) I-Descriptors don't apply to each value in a multi-valued field. One has to mange the multi-values as though the dbms was never designed to have multi-values. There are separate functions for multi-values and if one uses a called subroutine, the subroutine has to manage the multi-values and return an MV array back. There are also some peculiarities to UD (things you wouldn't believe). For instance: 1) COPY MYFILE '1''2''3' TO:(ANOTHERFILE ...sometimes doesn't work at all. COPY, BASIC, CATALOG, DELETE-LIST, and numerous other VERBS can't handle multiple items in the command line. You have to SELECT the items first before executing these verbs. 2) You can't create an account from within UD. You have to open a DOS window, create a directory, and execute a DOS command from within this new directory. 3) A new UD account has all kinds of new UD files created within the account. Not really a big deal but surprising. 4) Managing your TERM settings is difficult. 5) Some default settings are weird. For instance, when compiling a BASIC program it gets globally compiled and cataloged...like a new MV user wants this by default?! :-) 6) Items in the SAVEDLISTS file have a number appended to the end so one won't be able to manage these without using the ...LIST commands. For instance "SAVE-LIST BILL" ends up in the SAVEDLISTS file as "BILL000". Some other things to expect: + SAVED LISTS - In D3 you can "SELECT-LIST ME YOU"
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
UniVerse PICK flavour account would probably be - out of the box - the path of least resistance. As UniVerse emulates the PICK D3 environment much better than Unidata. Unidata was designed to be a clone of Prime INFORMATION - engineered from the manual up (which including doing this the PI Manual said it could do, but in reality it didn't almost do as published!). Bill H has nicely documented stuff for you already in his post and elsewhere on the Net: http://www.rhinocerus.net/forum/databases-pick/305503-migration-d3-universe-doco.html http://old.nabble.com/RE:-D3-to-U2---how-to-import-a-FileSave-tape-p4361606.html -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 7:14 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Databasic conversion Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ** IMPORTANT MESSAGE * This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ** ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Thanks Bill and Mecki. As ever some fantastic information from this group. From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: 06 April 2011 23:31 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion Symeon: I converted our application from D3 to UniData. There was quite a bit of work. I believe I started in Dec 2005 and finished at the end of March 2006 (I had to work a lot of overtime), and beta tested through Aug 2006. We went live with one our clients in Sep 2006 and then 10 more moved over in Nov and Dec 2006. I spent the next six months moving most of the rest of our clients to UniData. I'd say I spent about a thousand man hours on this. It could have been half that, but I had no help from anyone (including IBM/RS) except Colin Alfke in Canada. I have a lot of emails on this, but the following is one in particular. HTH, Bill - Original Message - *From:* Bill Haskett *To:* 'Bob Little' *Date:* 2/28/2006 6:29 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Changes to mail list configurations We're mostly done but have spent about 140 man-days. We spent a fair amount of our time grinding away with the line editor. We were constantly editing data, dictionaries, VOC entries, and BASIC programs. We were able to port a few utilities to UD to help (a TCL shell, a file listing program, a dictionary listing program, and a screen-scroll program). We feel that we could have saved about 30% of our time if there was a decent screen editor, as the productivity was extremely low with the "stone age" line editor (AE). This would have saved us about 40 man-days! We spent about 20% of our time messing around with moving D3 to UV to UD and all subsequent data moves. This would have saved us around 30 man-days. There weren't too many surprises but there were some. Here are the major ones: 1) There was absolutely no interest by IBM in helping us, 2) There were absolutely no utilities to assist in the conversion. When I consulted at a large UD user they had converted from Sequoia several years before and they said there were numerous utilities that converted their dictionaries and BASIC programs. These were unavailable to us. 3) We had to convert to UV first then to UD...well, not actually. We had to move our data to UV, convert the dictionaries, then move to UD. However, we eventually found a utility to restore a D3 account to UniData, which helped tremendously during our client upgrades. 4) There is no (or virtually no) security in U2. It's handled by the O/S. 5) There are no "users" in U2. They're managed by the O/S. 6) UD requires a lot more interaction with the O/S. For instance, since UD has no 'Q' pointers you have to create file pointers using environment variables. In Windows, this requires the creation of the environment variables on the server...very strange. 7) There is no backup facility in UD. 8) I-Descriptors don't apply to each value in a multi-valued field. One has to mange the multi-values as though the dbms was never designed to have multi-values. There are separate functions for multi-values and if one uses a called subroutine, the subroutine has to manage the multi-values and return an MV array back. There are also some peculiarities to UD (things you wouldn't believe). For instance: 1) COPY MYFILE '1''2''3' TO:(ANOTHERFILE ...sometimes doesn't work at all. COPY, BASIC, CATALOG, DELETE-LIST, and numerous other VERBS can't handle multiple items in the command line. You have to SELECT the items first before executing these verbs. 2) You can't create an account from within UD. You have to open a DOS window, create a directory, and execute a DOS command from within this new directory. 3) A new UD account has all kinds of new UD files created within the account. Not really a big deal but surprising. 4) Managing your TERM settings is difficult. 5) Some default settings are weird. For instance, when compiling a BASIC program it gets globally compiled and cataloged...like a new MV user wants this by default?! :-) 6) Items in the SAVEDLISTS file have a number appended to the end so one won't be able to manage these without using the ...LIST commands. For instance "SAVE-LIST BILL" ends up in the SAVEDLISTS file as "BILL000". Some other things to expect: + SAVED LISTS - In D3 you can "SELECT-LIST ME YOU" and you get a list of both lists. In UD you need to "SELECT WHATEVER TO 1" then "SELECT WHATEVER TO 2" then "MERGE.LIST 1 UNION 2 TO 3" and hope it works. :-) - In other MV you can "DELETE-LIST ME YOU" and have them both deleted. - The lists have different keys than the list name. For instance if I
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Symeon: I converted our application from D3 to UniData. There was quite a bit of work. I believe I started in Dec 2005 and finished at the end of March 2006 (I had to work a lot of overtime), and beta tested through Aug 2006. We went live with one our clients in Sep 2006 and then 10 more moved over in Nov and Dec 2006. I spent the next six months moving most of the rest of our clients to UniData. I'd say I spent about a thousand man hours on this. It could have been half that, but I had no help from anyone (including IBM/RS) except Colin Alfke in Canada. I have a lot of emails on this, but the following is one in particular. HTH, Bill - Original Message - *From:* Bill Haskett *To:* 'Bob Little' *Date:* 2/28/2006 6:29 AM *Subject:* Re: [U2] Changes to mail list configurations We're mostly done but have spent about 140 man-days. We spent a fair amount of our time grinding away with the line editor. We were constantly editing data, dictionaries, VOC entries, and BASIC programs. We were able to port a few utilities to UD to help (a TCL shell, a file listing program, a dictionary listing program, and a screen-scroll program). We feel that we could have saved about 30% of our time if there was a decent screen editor, as the productivity was extremely low with the "stone age" line editor (AE). This would have saved us about 40 man-days! We spent about 20% of our time messing around with moving D3 to UV to UD and all subsequent data moves. This would have saved us around 30 man-days. There weren't too many surprises but there were some. Here are the major ones: 1) There was absolutely no interest by IBM in helping us, 2) There were absolutely no utilities to assist in the conversion. When I consulted at a large UD user they had converted from Sequoia several years before and they said there were numerous utilities that converted their dictionaries and BASIC programs. These were unavailable to us. 3) We had to convert to UV first then to UD...well, not actually. We had to move our data to UV, convert the dictionaries, then move to UD. However, we eventually found a utility to restore a D3 account to UniData, which helped tremendously during our client upgrades. 4) There is no (or virtually no) security in U2. It's handled by the O/S. 5) There are no "users" in U2. They're managed by the O/S. 6) UD requires a lot more interaction with the O/S. For instance, since UD has no 'Q' pointers you have to create file pointers using environment variables. In Windows, this requires the creation of the environment variables on the server...very strange. 7) There is no backup facility in UD. 8) I-Descriptors don't apply to each value in a multi-valued field. One has to mange the multi-values as though the dbms was never designed to have multi-values. There are separate functions for multi-values and if one uses a called subroutine, the subroutine has to manage the multi-values and return an MV array back. There are also some peculiarities to UD (things you wouldn't believe). For instance: 1) COPY MYFILE '1''2''3' TO:(ANOTHERFILE ...sometimes doesn't work at all. COPY, BASIC, CATALOG, DELETE-LIST, and numerous other VERBS can't handle multiple items in the command line. You have to SELECT the items first before executing these verbs. 2) You can't create an account from within UD. You have to open a DOS window, create a directory, and execute a DOS command from within this new directory. 3) A new UD account has all kinds of new UD files created within the account. Not really a big deal but surprising. 4) Managing your TERM settings is difficult. 5) Some default settings are weird. For instance, when compiling a BASIC program it gets globally compiled and cataloged...like a new MV user wants this by default?! :-) 6) Items in the SAVEDLISTS file have a number appended to the end so one won't be able to manage these without using the ...LIST commands. For instance "SAVE-LIST BILL" ends up in the SAVEDLISTS file as "BILL000". Some other things to expect: + SAVED LISTS - In D3 you can "SELECT-LIST ME YOU" and you get a list of both lists. In UD you need to "SELECT WHATEVER TO 1" then "SELECT WHATEVER TO 2" then "MERGE.LIST 1 UNION 2 TO 3" and hope it works. :-) - In other MV you can "DELETE-LIST ME YOU" and have them both deleted. - The lists have different keys than the list name. For instance if I do a "SELECT VOC" then "SAVE-LIST BILL" the item in the SAVEDLIST file will be named "BILL000". So don't expect to be able to "SELECT SAVEDLIST 'BILL'" and get the list. - Be careful about using "DIR" files. They often have restrictions in what characters are allowed in the key. So, if you create some items in SAVEDLISTS that might look like "special*bill*1*0" then this will have to be changed to something like
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Symeon, It depends on how old the software is. As long as you run UD in Pick flavour and you have the source code Basic code shouldn't be much of a problem. If it compiles it will most likely work the same. And if the dictionaries use A and F correlatives they should be fine too. Procs usually also work fine even though some user exits may not work. Paragraphs will need some work. Usually no big deal. Mecki On 06/04/2011 22:14, Symeon Breen wrote: > Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written > in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. > > > > The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure > myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? > > > > > > Cheers > > Symeon. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
No SB From: Steve Romanow [mailto:slestak...@gmail.com] Sent: 06 April 2011 22:15 To: U2 Users List Cc: Symeon Breen Subject: Re: [U2] Databasic conversion There is no SB involved correct? On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written > in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. > > > > The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure > myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? > > > > > > Cheers > > Symeon. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3555 - Release Date: 04/06/11 ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
Well, from D3 that would make sense. Sry. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Steve Romanow wrote: > There is no SB involved correct? > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: >> Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written >> in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. >> >> >> >> The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure >> myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Symeon. >> >> ___ >> U2-Users mailing list >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Databasic conversion
There is no SB involved correct? On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Symeon Breen wrote: > Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written > in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. > > > > The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure > myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? > > > > > > Cheers > > Symeon. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] Databasic conversion
Hi I am looking at a little side project to convert an entire system written in databasic on D3 to run on unidata. The guy i work with says it is a couple of hours work - I am not so sure myself. Anyone done this and know what the 'gotchyas' are ? Cheers Symeon. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
