RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
Thanks Tony. I am glad the white paper showed you what you were after. Looks like you might be talking about a beta version of mv.NET. Up until the middle of January this year, I worked for IBM as the UD and UV product manager and was very involved with the project of bringing mv.NET into the U2 portfolio (was part of it from the beginning). When I left IBM, BF was beta testing their version 3 with AJAX support, and if I recall correctly, mv.NET hadn't fully supported UO.NET and its connection pooling methodology. As you can see, that wasn't so long ago. Anyway, I think all of this was about being cognoscente of IBM's licensing model in terms of BF's version of mv.NET and also how one gets U2's CP up and running. Have a good one! Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:07 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: > Tony, > How long is "a long time now"? I have quite a bit of history with the > product and if BF enabled it for UO.NET, it would only be from v3 > (and I haven't time to confirm if it is v3), which is a fairly new > version. Long time = over a year now. Current release is v3.5.0.5. I keep my clients informed about the latest releases - your vendor should do you the same favor. ;) > Having said that, mv.NET doesn't dictate whether connection > pooling has been properly licensed (which in enables it as well) on > the U2 server. Correct, never said anything different. Since mv.NET uses its own pooling, the presence or absence of CP is irrelevant. > Also, I provided a link in my previous post to an IBM > white paper that should demonstrate coding with CP in mind. After I hit the send button on my last note I kicked myself for not expressing gratitude for that link to ibmu2.microsoftnet.pdf. I have an old v1 copy of that and I want to thank you very much for the v2 link. Yes, I see the code in there: UniObjects.UOPooling = true; UniObjects.MinPoolSize = 1; UniObjects.MaxPoolSize = 10; It looks very easy and one of these days I'm sure I'll make use of it. Regards, T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
Tony: Just as an aside, if you have access to the U2 Knowledge Base you can go to the following link: <http://www-1.ibm.com/support/entdocview.wss?rs=203&context=SW000&q1=+U2%20+Connectio n%20+Pooling&uid=swg21265540&loc=en_US&cs=utf-8&cc=us&lang=all&NotUpdateReferer=> This has a zip file with a "configcp" .NET project. One can test the connection pool this way. I ran the "configcp.exe" in the "...\configcp\bin\Debug" directory, logged in then ran the LISTUSER verb and got: 3 Demo (0)-> LU Licensed(UDT+CP)/Effective Udt Sql iPhtm Pooled Total ( 10 + 1 ) / 11 1 0 0 1 2 UDTNO USRNBR UID USRNAME USRTYPE TTYIP-ADDRESSTIME DATE 1 3644 197615 wphaskett phantom pts/1 Console 11:04:43 Jun 27 2007 2 1312 197635 DataTrust pooled pts/2 udcs 22:42:15 Jul 18 2007 3 3092 197615 wphaskett udt pts/3 192.168.1.101 22:42:30 Jul 18 2007 Bill >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno >Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:07 PM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: >> Tony, >> How long is "a long time now"? I have quite a bit of history with the >> product and if BF enabled it for UO.NET, it would only be from v3 >> (and I haven't time to confirm if it is v3), which is a fairly new >> version. > >Long time = over a year now. Current release is v3.5.0.5. I >keep my clients informed about the latest releases - your vendor >should do you the same favor. ;) > >> Having said that, mv.NET doesn't dictate whether connection >> pooling has been properly licensed (which in enables it as well) on >> the U2 server. > >Correct, never said anything different. Since mv.NET uses its >own pooling, the presence or absence of CP is irrelevant. > >> Also, I provided a link in my previous post to an IBM >> white paper that should demonstrate coding with CP in mind. > >After I hit the send button on my last note I kicked myself for not >expressing gratitude for that link to ibmu2.microsoftnet.pdf. >I have an >old v1 copy of that and I want to thank you very much for the v2 link. > >Yes, I see the code in there: > UniObjects.UOPooling = true; > UniObjects.MinPoolSize = 1; > UniObjects.MaxPoolSize = 10; >It looks very easy and one of these days I'm sure I'll make use of it. > >Regards, >T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: > Tony, > How long is "a long time now"? I have quite a bit of history with the > product and if BF enabled it for UO.NET, it would only be from v3 > (and I haven't time to confirm if it is v3), which is a fairly new > version. Long time = over a year now. Current release is v3.5.0.5. I keep my clients informed about the latest releases - your vendor should do you the same favor. ;) > Having said that, mv.NET doesn't dictate whether connection > pooling has been properly licensed (which in enables it as well) on > the U2 server. Correct, never said anything different. Since mv.NET uses its own pooling, the presence or absence of CP is irrelevant. > Also, I provided a link in my previous post to an IBM > white paper that should demonstrate coding with CP in mind. After I hit the send button on my last note I kicked myself for not expressing gratitude for that link to ibmu2.microsoftnet.pdf. I have an old v1 copy of that and I want to thank you very much for the v2 link. Yes, I see the code in there: UniObjects.UOPooling = true; UniObjects.MinPoolSize = 1; UniObjects.MaxPoolSize = 10; It looks very easy and one of these days I'm sure I'll make use of it. Regards, T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
Tony, How long is "a long time now"? I have quite a bit of history with the product and if BF enabled it for UO.NET, it would only be from v3 (and I haven't time to confirm if it is v3), which is a fairly new version. Having said that, mv.NET doesn't dictate whether connection pooling has been properly licensed (which in enables it as well) on the U2 server. Also, I provided a link in my previous post to an IBM white paper that should demonstrate coding with CP in mind. Regards, LeRoy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:46 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO Just to clarify - mv.NET can use standard UO but has also been enabled to use UO.NET for a long time now, and standard UO might not even be supported in a near-future release. It's preferable to use managed components all the way through, so UO.NET is the preferred pipe. T LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: > mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as > such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
Symeon: Sure. But how's an idiot like me supposed to figure out the single ".dll" in a U2 client 450Mb download that can be used by mv.NET and there won't be something missing? :-) Bill >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen >Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:53 AM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >I am sure it is useful for many things. > > BTW - UO.NET is only a 208kb download, you don't need the > whole clients CD. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett >Sent: 18 July 2007 17:00 >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >Symeon: > >This is useful when outside developers are working on a test U2 dbms >within our network. This way, we don't have to install UO/UO.NET (a >450Mb download) or mess with our firewalls. Quite useful, really. :-) > >Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
I am sure it is useful for many things. BTW - UO.NET is only a 208kb download, you don't need the whole clients CD. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Haskett Sent: 18 July 2007 17:00 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO Symeon: This is useful when outside developers are working on a test U2 dbms within our network. This way, we don't have to install UO/UO.NET (a 450Mb download) or mess with our firewalls. Quite useful, really. :-) Bill >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen >Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:11 AM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >mv.NET can also connect back to the host via telnet - which always makes me >grin, but I am sure it has its uses. > > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno >Sent: 18 July 2007 08:46 >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >Just to clarify - mv.NET can use standard UO but has also been enabled to >use UO.NET for a long time now, and standard UO might not even be supported >in a near-future release. It's preferable to use managed components all >the way through, so UO.NET is the preferred pipe. >T > >LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: >> >> mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as >> such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
Symeon: This is useful when outside developers are working on a test U2 dbms within our network. This way, we don't have to install UO/UO.NET (a 450Mb download) or mess with our firewalls. Quite useful, really. :-) Bill >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen >Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:11 AM >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >mv.NET can also connect back to the host via telnet - which always makes me >grin, but I am sure it has its uses. > > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno >Sent: 18 July 2007 08:46 >To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org >Subject: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO > >Just to clarify - mv.NET can use standard UO but has also been enabled to >use UO.NET for a long time now, and standard UO might not even be supported >in a near-future release. It's preferable to use managed components all >the way through, so UO.NET is the preferred pipe. >T > >LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: >> >> mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as >> such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
The current system I work on (not U2 based) uses a vb6 front end that communicates via custom tcp/ip libraries to a backend component running on a windows server within the MKS (unix) environment calling into informix 4gl code that has been compiled against a translation library to work with sql server 2005. Users are currently wondering why it's all so god awful slow :-) There's much to be said for a quick and simple telnet interface. -- Don Kibbey --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
mv.NET can also connect back to the host via telnet - which always makes me grin, but I am sure it has its uses. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: 18 July 2007 08:46 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: [U2] RE: mv.NET and UO Just to clarify - mv.NET can use standard UO but has also been enabled to use UO.NET for a long time now, and standard UO might not even be supported in a near-future release. It's preferable to use managed components all the way through, so UO.NET is the preferred pipe. T LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: > mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as > such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
[U2] RE: mv.NET and UO
Just to clarify - mv.NET can use standard UO but has also been enabled to use UO.NET for a long time now, and standard UO might not even be supported in a near-future release. It's preferable to use managed components all the way through, so UO.NET is the preferred pipe. T LeRoy Dreyfuss wrote: > mv.NET from BlueFinity would be using standard UniObjects and as > such, could not take advantage of connection pooling from U2 (CP). --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
