Re: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 10:21:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> AFIK, "Visage" offers users a GUI in a TOTAL WINDOWS LOOK AND 
> FEEL/BROWSER environment, without having to do a "total rewrite", but a 
> "rewrite" none the less, re-using some portions, perhaps, of existing 
> code.   "Visage" seems to be more than a user interface.   It's also 
> supposedly (sorry, Ross, I've got no experience in "Visage") a much less 
> involved NEW development environment
> 
> Other MV so-called "GUI" approaches, (AccuTerm and wIntegrate scripts, for 
> example) are offering the user a GUI with an almost-modern Windows look and 
> feel, but without the bells and whistles, and are offering a GUI by 
> applying Band-Aids to existing code.   I really don't think that's a 
> "development environment".I don't think "new development" is covered by 
> this approach.

What?  How exactly do you get this?
A script is not an "almost modern Windows look and feel"... it is the look 
and feel.
The script calls windows exectuables underneath it, thats how it works.
If a programmer chooses not to utilize all the various objects and methods 
etc that Accuterm reveals, thats their own choice, not the fault of the product.

I'm not sure exactly how Visage is that much better than Accuterm in that 
regard.
Are you?
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[Bruce Nichol]

Goo'day,

At 10:17 18/04/04, Will replied to:

In a message dated 4/17/2004 4:16:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A key factor that makes CUI non-portable
> to GUI is the embedded Input and Print statements in the code.
I respectfully disagree that this is key.
Aren't we forgetting what Ross (and others) offer in Visage (and 
whatever)?   AFIK, "Visage" offers users a GUI in a TOTAL WINDOWS LOOK AND 
FEEL/BROWSER environment, without having to do a "total rewrite", but a 
"rewrite" none the less, re-using some portions, perhaps, of existing 
code.   "Visage" seems to be more than a user interface.   It's also 
supposedly (sorry, Ross, I've got no experience in "Visage") a much less 
involved NEW development environment

Other MV so-called "GUI" approaches, (AccuTerm and wIntegrate scripts, for 
example) are offering the user a GUI with an almost-modern Windows look and 
feel, but without the bells and whistles, and are offering a GUI by 
applying Band-Aids to existing code.   I really don't think that's a 
"development environment".I don't think "new development" is covered by 
this approach.

If we were all developing "new" applications, and we could afford it, I 
reckon we would all jump at "Visage"... Or some such.

I'd hazard a guess that the cost of "new" development in "Visage", together 
with the cost of "Visage", would come out less (Ross??) than the cost of 
the same level of development to the same level of "total" user interface 
in our known MV Terminal Emulation environs.   The per-user outgoing cost 
of a MV TE capable of supporting the TE scripts (as opposed to the cost of 
IE6!!) is, IMHO, the crippling factor, here.   Especially in the larger 
sites where everybody would be forced into using the "GUI-able" TE instead 
of the lower-cost/freebie ones.

What we're all (all of us software developers, that is) trying to do is 
maintain a "public acceptance" for our EXISTING software.   Sales = Public 
Acceptance.Ross is out in front with "Visage", right up there with 
"Windows products", because he's been able to absorb the costs of 
development over a period of time, developing "Visage" and 
developing/redeveloping his applications using it as he goes.   OK,  he's 
paid more for his version of "Visage" but he got his version earlier than 
the rest of us; he and his people have far more experience with it than the 
rest of us; it was written for their express requirements; they know what 
its' capabilities are; they know its' shortcomings; they know what's 
planned for its' future, and he's selling licences to it to help in 
recovering his outlay.   Most of the rest of us are looking at it, at its 
cost, at the cost of "redeveloping" using it, and going with it, or hoping 
that the lower initial outlay of providing TE scripts will suffice, or ..

At our level of the market, a Windows-driven "shareware" TE such as NetTerm 
- which offers "mouse awareness"and "hot-spots" (a "constant mouse 
position" for "Y" or "N" outside the TE "screen", etc) amongst other 
useable things, coupled with a "lightly-rewritten" development (basically 
now offering "lists" of acceptable input for user acceptance, where 
applicable - reducing the "guess work") of our existing applications to 
provide a "mouse aware"  "shrink-wrapped" version in direct competition to 
the MYOBs,"Business Manager", Quicken's, etc, (5 to 20 users) at those sort 
of costs, is where we perceive our future.We don't want to sell 
millions of seats, but, rather,  provide a "quality" "easy to use" "easy to 
understand" product that we can support from wherever we choose to be - and 
make a quid!   OK, we don't have the banks clamouring to provide or accept 
detail in our "native" file format, but they *do* provide and accept .csv 
and .txt formats, and we have OPENSEQ with READSEQ/WRITESEQ in our quiver, 
so we're competitive

Our biggest problem in the market is the discipline we insist on at 
input. Not the sequence of input, mind you, but not allowing users to 
"short cut", or ignore proper "audit" procedures. After all, we're 
throwing ourselves squarely at the "Mums and Dads" "I only want to 
do.." commercial marketIf we can just convince a few of them 
that they can use the mouse to "point at" a  selection, or use "arrow" keys 
to transverse a list of options, or even, at worst, use a keyboard to enter 
something (remapping  as  has helped!!), and that there is some 
discipline involved ...

With the ..SEQs we also offer the ability to import/export data to/from the 
MV database.   So, any "office product", for example, Excel or Word or, God 
forbid, MS Access can be used as a front/back end.  (I appreciate the 
subject is/was "Crystal Reports" but, frankly, I've never been asked for 
anything other than Excel, Word or MS Access interaction, except, years 
ago, Lotus).   Is it a major problem to write to a file and get your 
"office product" to pick up and conve

RE: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[Tony Gravagno]

Will wrote:
>> A key factor that makes CUI non-portable
>> to GUI is the embedded Input and Print statements in the code.
>
>I respectfully disagree that this is key.
>After all event oriented apps also have input statements
>I think you mean the key factor is that the programs are not 
>event oriented.

Mike Randall said:
>I think the point Tony was making was the splitting of the 
>program logic from the actual screen formatting. 
> ...
>You do bring up a valid point regarding event driven apps with 
>the concept of submitting an entire form.


You're both right.  Note that my quote was "_A_ key factor", not "_The_ key
factor".  In my mind I assume that event orientation is possible once code
is modularized, Input statements are replaced with passed-in values, and
Print statements are replaced with returned messages and status data.  You
can have event oriented code with Print/Input statements, which isn't
desirable, at least in MV code destined for a GUI.  You can also have
monolithic procedural code without the Print/Input statements, which could
be the case with screen-at-a-time (3270 style) code.

The bottom line is that a fundamental shift needs to be made in most MV code
before it can be moved to GUI.  Contrary to popular belief this shift
doesn't need to be made all at once.  I have a VAR/client with a 20 year old
app that is being refitted over time to be more modular.  They started their
conscious shift about a year ago and they're now finding all sorts of
benefits to modularization.  They're now at a point where they can start
looking at various GUI-enablement products in our market space.

As an aside, pardon me for being so bold, but it's amazing that the
providers of these GUI products aren't jumping to pay people like me to help
developers become viable candidates for their products.  There's no
guarantee that any given site will adopt any given GUI product, if any, but
unless there are prospects there can be no new customers.  It seems to me
it's worth it to "someone" to foster redevelopment like this.  Well, that's
the MV market for ya...

Tony

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: PI Open is going away

[Clifton Oliver]

Which "trick" was that? He had so many.

On Apr 17, 2004, at 15:08, Ross Ferris wrote:

Probably. Never knew the guy ... but I thought the "trick" was kinda 
neat, and I've still been known to use variants to this day :-)
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[Mike Randall]

I think the point Tony was making was the splitting of the program logic
from the actual screen formatting.   One of the most arduous tasks in
converting to a GUI is the splitting of the screen layout (print statements)
from the business logic in programs.  If your programs have the somewhat
typical [EMAIL PROTECTED] SOMETHING WITH INPUT format, the PRINT@ part has to
be removed as it will be replaced by the GUI.  Applications that have some
type of screen processor are way ahead of the game.  In that scenario, your
code is mostly logic and much easier to link a GUI.   

You do bring up a valid point regarding event driven apps with the concept
of submitting an entire form.  IMO, that depends on the platform and design
choices made by the developer.   For example, using Redback with ASP or ASP.
Net, you can pretty much mimic the field by field validations and processing
of CUI programs (one of the greatest features of .Net is the auto postback).
Of course there are performance considerations/penalties for doing it but
you can do it.   On the flip side, you could also take all the input and
submit it to a server process once.   More efficient but trade-offs in
functionality.

Mike R.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 8:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

In a message dated 4/17/2004 4:16:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> A key factor that makes CUI non-portable
> to GUI is the embedded Input and Print statements in the code.

I respectfully disagree that this is key.
After all event oriented apps also have input statements
I think you mean the key factor is that the programs are not event oriented.

That is, on a typical GUI form I can click and fill in any field in any 
order, and then I submit the entire form.  In a typical mv app, most
programmers 
would write it so the inputs happen in a definite order and there is no way
to 
change that order, on the fly.

If programs were rewriten so that the inputs were all seperated from each 
other logically, and could be entered in any order.  (Tab forward, tab back 
between fields, or point and click since mouse clicks are captured by
accuterm and 
wintegrate among others).  Then some of the validation (two field 
interactions) should be relegated to the On.SUBMIT part of the program, etc.

If we could code in this fashion, then any app can be GUIized with less 
effort.
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 4:16:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> A key factor that makes CUI non-portable
> to GUI is the embedded Input and Print statements in the code.

I respectfully disagree that this is key.
After all event oriented apps also have input statements
I think you mean the key factor is that the programs are not event oriented.  
That is, on a typical GUI form I can click and fill in any field in any 
order, and then I submit the entire form.  In a typical mv app, most programmers 
would write it so the inputs happen in a definite order and there is no way to 
change that order, on the fly.

If programs were rewriten so that the inputs were all seperated from each 
other logically, and could be entered in any order.  (Tab forward, tab back 
between fields, or point and click since mouse clicks are captured by accuterm and 
wintegrate among others).  Then some of the validation (two field 
interactions) should be relegated to the On.SUBMIT part of the program, etc.

If we could code in this fashion, then any app can be GUIized with less 
effort.
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 4:06:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> Another standard is that used by the UNLOAD.FILE.B program and its 
> corresponding bulk loader utility loadfile.
> Here, a line beginning with other than a TAB character or one of "/}", "/]" 
> or "\{" contains a key value, a tab and the first element of the data dynamic 
> array.
> A line beginning with a tab contains the first element of the next field in 
> the data dynamic array.
> A line beginning with "/}" and a tab contains the next first element of the 
> next value in the currently-being-processed multi-valued field.
> And so on

Easy for you to say.
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[Tony Gravagno]

Tough to find a good place for these comments.  There are some interesting
observations to make on the mentality of IT people, business management,
etc..

First, on the concept of "if we're going to add a GUI we might as well get
an entirely new app":  The business rules and UI should be considered as
entirely separate entities.  Getting a new app with a GUI does not imply
that you're going to get equal or better business rules.  This concept is
exemplified by Mark's GP client and dozens more like them.  Management must
be educated to separate the idea of the UI from the business rules.

Second, I wince in pain at the concept of IT people looking at a Character
UI and deciding it's deficient, based solely on the asthetic value.  How can
someone decide by the UI whether an app suits business needs?  How does the
simple fact that an app has a Graphical UI make it any more functional than
a Character UI?  What is the trigger in the mind of IT people that leads
from "I see a GUI" to "it must be capable of running our business" or "all
we need to do is add a couple business rules to this GUI and it will work
for us"?  I really think this GUI mentality comes in part from the video
game generation where graphical games are perceived as better than the old
Pong, StarTrek, Zork, Wumpus, and Adventure games ("plugh" or "xyzzy" ring
any bells here?)  In all of the rhetoric about separating the UI from the
business rules, somewhere in the minds of IT people is the idea that a
Graphical UI implies better business rules - and graphical database
management tools somehow imply a more sophisticated database.  So while
people sing the praises of Object Orientation and n-tier architectures, in
the big picture they still don't really "get it".

Third, and all of this is really related, what confuses me about all of
these failed migrations is that intelligent professionals keep missing
obvious factors of migration, like feature comparisions, business needs
assessments, training, and documentation.  And why do we seldom see basic
auditing to identify problems and keep a project on track - or to put a halt
to migration when critical (and I really mean critical) issues are
identified?  In every one of these failed migrations there is one or more
persons in management pushing forward with some underlying business agenda,
no one wants to openly state that the plans aren't sound, the systems aren't
ready, or that the whole idea is foolhardy - and somehow hundreds of
thousands of dollars get thrown into projects like this with no one in IT to
pull in the reins and say "enough is enough, this is FUBAR".

There are answers:
- Upper management should openly listen, if not directly or immediately
heed, the advice of everyone affected by a migration, from end-users to IT
to trading partners and perhaps even stockholders.
- Upper management must insist on detailed advance planning from IT, and get
everyone to try to poke holes in the plan.  Hire a consultant to poke holes
in the plan (similar to hiring a hacker to test your network security).  If
the plan doesn't work, at least everyone had their input.  This is far
better than post-failure finger pointing and "I coulda told them it was a
stupid plan" comments.  (Yes, that will happen anyway if people ignore the
opportunity to speak up.  Small people love to bask in the failure of
others.)
- Someone needs to be accountable.  It seems the people who drive projects
like this into the ground have the least to lose and many people under them
to blame.

Finally, and back to the topic, about Results and the magic silver bullet
which will lead from CUI to GUI:  It seems we have years to add
functionality to these CUI applications, but no time to prepare them for the
almost inevitable GUI challenge.  A key factor that makes CUI non-portable
to GUI is the embedded Input and Print statements in the code.  Don't wait
for tools to go GUI, prepare your app properly and you'll find many tools
that can then be used to add the GUI.  If developers would take some time to
modularize their code, then migration to GUI using any number of tools can
be a relatively simple, painless, and inexpensive process, compared to
migration from linear/procedural/non-event-oriented "spaghetti" code.
Pre-emptive modularization may eliminate the need for migration, saving
months to years of aggravation and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars
in non-recoverable expenses.  And IF migration is to occur, modularization
now can facilitate the process later, allowing a company a smoother exit
strategy rather than a cold-turkey cutoff.  Unfortunately these concepts
have been well known for over a decade but we continue to hear stories where
the code can't be GUItized so management decides to toss the app.

Getting management to buy-in on the time/cost of modularizing an app is
tough.  The value is only perceived when the expense of a GUI or migration
is considered, and that's usually too late.  I think it's important for IT
pe

Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[Ray Wurlod]

Another standard is that used by the UNLOAD.FILE.B program and its corresponding bulk 
loader utility loadfile.
Here, a line beginning with other than a TAB character or one of "/}", "/]" or "\{" 
contains a key value, a tab and the first element of the data dynamic array.
A line beginning with a tab contains the first element of the next field in the data 
dynamic array.
A line beginning with "/}" and a tab contains the next first element of the next value 
in the currently-being-processed multi-valued field.
And so on.

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: PI Open is going away

[Ray Wurlod]

One of the reasons PI/open could not advance was that its source control system was 
written in MIDASPLUS. D'oh!
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: PI Open is going away

[Ray Wurlod]

I don't remember seeing any three comments!

- Original Message -
From: Clifton Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:12:35 -0700
To: U2 Users Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PI Open is going away

> That would be John "60,000 lines of PMA assemby code and only 3 
> comments" Drumheller.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Clif

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 10:55:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> You expect delimiters? When I started in computers, our binary only had 
> zeros - and we were glad to have them!
> The thing about MV or flat really comes down to a case-by-case to my way 
> of thinking. I generally program Order Entry systems as 1NF, even on MV 
> systems. Pricing, Inventory, and any number of other parts tend to lend 
> themselves to MV. I like being able to choose the best form for each case.
> 
>  Sincerely,
>   Charles Barouch
>   www.KeyAlly.com
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Heretic!  Are you saying that an order entry screen of one header and 
unlimited detail lines is actually  [shudder] ... several DIFFERENT 
records!??!?!?!?!!

In that world, where would my program that allows you to [quickly] edit 
thousand-value, multi-megabyte, records be of any worth?

"Five hundred useless utilities" Will Johnson 
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 6:14:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> Perhaps we should all capitulate & start to use flat CSV files ?
> 
> Ross Ferris
> Stamina Software
> Visage â an Evolution in Software Development

Having created a system on a MAC that does use flat CSV files to "mimic" mv, 
I feel able to say ... its a pain in the butt.  But a great learning 
experience.
   Doing this gave me a new understanding and appreciation for what the 
system programmers did when they created the mv system.
Will
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: can we stop with the pointless displays? was Re: Crystal Reports

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 7:35:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> and had to watch the compiler meticulously display those line-by
> line asterisks during compiling.

O speaking of that, thank you that reminds me.
When doing BUILD-INDEX is it really necessary to display an asterisk with 
every ten items indexed?  That is consuming more CPU time that doing the index! 
[IMHO]
   Get rid of it! Out! Vamoosh! Be gone with your evil self!
   I don't find value-added to displaying asterisks.  If you must display 
anything, display a counter every thousand 1000 , 2000, 3000 or something or base 
the display on the apparent speed of the processing.
   Like every 5 seconds display the current count.  That would help and it 
should be a very trivial fix.
   Do we have a fix it list yet up on the web site?  Or can we start one? Or 
what?
Will
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: GUI from Mv code Re: Crystal Reports

[FFT2001]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 9:10:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> The tools are there to produce applications on par with anything on the
> market.  Web interfaces via tools like Redback. UOJ, .Net PDP, or the java
> interfaces are all there to produce great solutions for U2. 

And I would like to mention Accuterm.  I have built several scripts in 
Accuterm that do Gui like functions, and are launced from inside the mv Code.  
Accuterm has the ability to watch for a command that is directed at it and then 
take actions in Windoze.

So for example, one client, has an application where they have to pull up a 
record in an mv screen and then listen to a person speaking (off a MP3 file) 
and then process the record based on that speech.  So my solution was to write 
an accuterm script that launches Windows Media Player to the location specified 
from the mv code.

Another script launches web requests from inside mv code, scraps the 
contents, and presents partial information within an mv application.  All in basically 
a green-screen format, inside an Accuterm window.  But I digress.

My main point was, that the tools are here.  Are you ready to learn how to 
use them?  That's the sticking point.

Will Johnson
Fast Forward Technologies
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: PI Open is going away

[Ross Ferris]

Probably. Never knew the guy ... but I thought the "trick" was kinda neat, and I've 
still been known to use variants to this day :-)

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Clifton Oliver
>Sent: Sunday, 18 April 2004 5:13 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: PI Open is going away
>
>That would be John "60,000 lines of PMA assemby code and only 3
>comments" Drumheller.
>
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>Clif
>On Apr 17, 2004, at 6:15, Ross Ferris wrote:
>
>> Don't forget to mention "the Drumheller(? Drumhella?) Trick !"
>
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

[FFT2001]

And of course it's not self-serving to state that a web presence is itself 
necessary in order to be "forward thinking" .  I mean since you offer 
a product that does that 
   Now to me, forward thinking might involve more robust use of log files, 
audit files, transactions and rollback, background processing, process 
management  but then I'm just old school.
Will

In a message dated 4/17/2004 6:05:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> >   Not saying all businesses are this way.  But I'm saying I don't think
> >that is where most of the traditional multi-value market is focused.
> 
> BUT, unless we help our customers get there - OR find new customers that 
> WANT to get there, we (as a market) run the risk that OUR existing customers 
> will loose market share & be consumed by more forward thinking competitors, 
> which in turn may mean that we too are out of a career !
> 
> Ross Ferris
> Stamina Software
> Visage â an Evolution in Software Development

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: PI Open is going away

[Lance J. Andersen]

I think 3 lines of comments is generous ;-)

When I went through that lovely set of code to document the PI error 
messages I  was wishing i could find the design spec, but I believe the 
spec matched the number of comments in the Kernel (i.e. it did not exist).





Clifton Oliver wrote:

That would be John "60,000 lines of PMA assemby code and only 3 
comments" Drumheller.

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[Mark Johnson]

Let's not forget the lower case L for 1 (one).

- Original Message -
From: "Larry Hiscock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: UV to Text Conversion Standard?


> > You expect delimiters? When I started in computers, our binary
> > only had zeros - and we were glad to have them!
>
> You had zeros?!?  We had to use the letter O   ;->
>
> Larry Hiscock
> Western Computer Services
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Results
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 10:54 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?
>
>
> Ross,
>
> >Perhaps we should all capitulate & start to use flat CSV files ?
>
> You expect delimiters? When I started in computers, our binary only had
> zeros - and we were glad to have them!
> The thing about MV or flat really comes down to a case-by-case to my way
of
> thinking. I generally program Order Entry systems as 1NF, even on MV
> systems. Pricing, Inventory, and any number of other parts tend to lend
> themselves to MV. I like being able to choose the best form for each case.
>
> --
>
>  Sincerely,
>   Charles Barouch
>   www.KeyAlly.com
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
> --
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Crystal Reports

[Mark Johnson]

Maybe I'm not strong enough to convince my clients to begin to integrate GUI
based entities to their MV systems. I have had these discussions with each
of them and I often get the "We like things the way they are".

2 of my clients have had their order entry software from around 1977. One in
particular had it initially developed by an outside company and then the 2
owners have been tweaking it until the mid 1990's when i got involved. They
are both a little stubborn for new ideas (which actually is kinda good, MV
wise) so I just keep adding features within the same looking environment. I
even have to follow house rules for the symantics for saving records,
leaving programs etc.

I've added regular and email blasts to their system, automatic faxing,
automatic FTPing, web exporting and a few other modern tricks to their
system. When we upgraded, it had to be on a W2K box to keep the PC
familiarity instead of unix.

I know that many of my clients are at a crossroads that if I were to suggest
some major spending on GUI-for-MV products that the implied new expense may
make a replacement system a little more appealing. If they're going to spend
$10 to $20K on something, why not throw out MV. It's a hard place to be.

Personally, I'm committed to helping them get the best out of their MV
system. I also feel that it's in its twilight and I'm taking some other
routes for revenue generation. I wish I were either at a VAR or at one
end-user so I could plant my feet and really invest for their (our) future.
But being independent, that's probably the way the ball bounces.

Thanks.

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'U2 Users Discussion List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: Crystal Reports


> Mark,
>
> I think you've hit it right on the head regarding the dilemma surrounding
> MV.   The visual aspect KILLS us.   The MV solutions out there are many
and
> very good at what they do.  The problem is that most of them look ancient
> and lack the GUI glitz and integration ability.
>
> The REAL shame is that the technology to develop full GUI products in our
> environment is here.   The story you mentioned of clients migrating to
some
> other GUI solution only to find it less capable than the MV system is a
> recurring nightmare.   I think the solution lies in the hands of the
> developers like yourself and the MV organizations that provide solutions.
>
> The tools are there to produce applications on par with anything on the
> market.  Web interfaces via tools like Redback. UOJ, .Net PDP, or the java
> interfaces are all there to produce great solutions for U2.   There are
host
> of 4GL tools for our environment like SB+, Visage, Nucleus and others
> (apologies for any omissions).   I think the developers, consultants and
> solution providers almost have to embrace "something" other than
delivering
> character based apps.   If you don't, then get used to clients leaving.
>
> Personally,  I came to this crossroads in the late 90s and decided to
learn
> the web technologies.  My company is a consulting group specializing in
web
> development for MV via Redback and now Raining Data's Data Provider.   It
> sounds cruel, but it's a case of switch to something or be eaten.
>
> Mike R.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 10:34 AM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Crystal Reports
>
> Ross:
>
> Your square peg, round hole analogy is pretty accurate. GP seems to be the
> next step for quickbooks users.
>
> The package that they're migrating from is Results from Microdata from the
> early 1980's. I still have 4 other clients using Results as well as a
> mixture of other Order entry packages/homegrown.
>
> While I can itemize a few shortcomings of Results, it has stood the test
of
> time because it's still being used. Each of my 4 other Results clients
have
> taken their copy and evolved it in their own localized versions.
>
> What absolutely impresses me is that none of these 4.5 clients have used
> *all* of the originally installed features of Results. They use many and
> have added many of their own. But the core design of Results remains true
> and someone got it very correct back during its rollout. Add to the fact
> that the developers didn't have a 4GL to think of, had 50MB 64K 1Mhz
> machines and had to watch the compiler meticulously display those line-by
> line asterisks during compiling. Plus, those programs were pretty long as
> well, didn't have INCLUDES and didn't have the open CALL concept that
> everyone else has. Not to mention the original 32 K record (program) size
> file structure.
>
> Only 1 of my Results clients remains on the older MCD box and oddly
enough,
> he has the 2nd most sophisticated deviations of my 4.5 clients. The others
> are either on R90 or UD.
>
> I think the greatest oversight in all of MV is the ina

Re: PI Open is going away

[Clifton Oliver]

That would be John "60,000 lines of PMA assemby code and only 3 
comments" Drumheller.

--

Regards,

Clif
On Apr 17, 2004, at 6:15, Ross Ferris wrote:
Don't forget to mention "the Drumheller(? Drumhella?) Trick !"
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[Larry Hiscock]

> You expect delimiters? When I started in computers, our binary
> only had zeros - and we were glad to have them!

You had zeros?!?  We had to use the letter O   ;->

Larry Hiscock
Western Computer Services


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Results
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 10:54 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?


Ross,

>Perhaps we should all capitulate & start to use flat CSV files ?

You expect delimiters? When I started in computers, our binary only had
zeros - and we were glad to have them!
The thing about MV or flat really comes down to a case-by-case to my way of
thinking. I generally program Order Entry systems as 1NF, even on MV
systems. Pricing, Inventory, and any number of other parts tend to lend
themselves to MV. I like being able to choose the best form for each case.

--

 Sincerely,
  Charles Barouch
  www.KeyAlly.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[Results]

Ross,

Perhaps we should all capitulate & start to use flat CSV files ?
You expect delimiters? When I started in computers, our binary only had zeros 
- and we were glad to have them!
The thing about MV or flat really comes down to a case-by-case to my way of 
thinking. I generally program Order Entry systems as 1NF, even on MV systems. Pricing, 
Inventory, and any number of other parts tend to lend themselves to MV. I like being 
able to choose the best form for each case.
--

Sincerely,
 Charles Barouch
 www.KeyAlly.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: PI Open is going away

[John Jenkins]

Nononono -- how will we know what a PERI 157 is if you do that ???

;-)

JayJay
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith Upton
Sent: 16 April 2004 09:55
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: PI Open is going away

Funny that... I was only thinking the other day that I should throw out my
ICL 1900 COBOL and PLAN Manuals!!! :-)



-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Crystal Reports

[Mike Randall]

Mark,

I think you've hit it right on the head regarding the dilemma surrounding
MV.   The visual aspect KILLS us.   The MV solutions out there are many and
very good at what they do.  The problem is that most of them look ancient
and lack the GUI glitz and integration ability.

The REAL shame is that the technology to develop full GUI products in our
environment is here.   The story you mentioned of clients migrating to some
other GUI solution only to find it less capable than the MV system is a
recurring nightmare.   I think the solution lies in the hands of the
developers like yourself and the MV organizations that provide solutions.

The tools are there to produce applications on par with anything on the
market.  Web interfaces via tools like Redback. UOJ, .Net PDP, or the java
interfaces are all there to produce great solutions for U2.   There are host
of 4GL tools for our environment like SB+, Visage, Nucleus and others
(apologies for any omissions).   I think the developers, consultants and
solution providers almost have to embrace "something" other than delivering
character based apps.   If you don't, then get used to clients leaving.

Personally,  I came to this crossroads in the late 90s and decided to learn
the web technologies.  My company is a consulting group specializing in web
development for MV via Redback and now Raining Data's Data Provider.   It
sounds cruel, but it's a case of switch to something or be eaten.

Mike R.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 10:34 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Crystal Reports

Ross:

Your square peg, round hole analogy is pretty accurate. GP seems to be the
next step for quickbooks users.

The package that they're migrating from is Results from Microdata from the
early 1980's. I still have 4 other clients using Results as well as a
mixture of other Order entry packages/homegrown.

While I can itemize a few shortcomings of Results, it has stood the test of
time because it's still being used. Each of my 4 other Results clients have
taken their copy and evolved it in their own localized versions.

What absolutely impresses me is that none of these 4.5 clients have used
*all* of the originally installed features of Results. They use many and
have added many of their own. But the core design of Results remains true
and someone got it very correct back during its rollout. Add to the fact
that the developers didn't have a 4GL to think of, had 50MB 64K 1Mhz
machines and had to watch the compiler meticulously display those line-by
line asterisks during compiling. Plus, those programs were pretty long as
well, didn't have INCLUDES and didn't have the open CALL concept that
everyone else has. Not to mention the original 32 K record (program) size
file structure.

Only 1 of my Results clients remains on the older MCD box and oddly enough,
he has the 2nd most sophisticated deviations of my 4.5 clients. The others
are either on R90 or UD.

I think the greatest oversight in all of MV is the inability to re-compile
the existing source code to a GUI equivilent. I'm smart enough to realize
how tremendously difficult that would be. But I know that a major reason for
my current dilema with this UD/Results guy going to Great Plains is the
visual aspect of it. People taste with their eyes and most IT 20-something
guys have never seen anything decent on a character-based screen so they
relegate it to the sophistication of command-line DOS. While they have made
an incorrect conclusion, their voices speak loudest. And since they hold the
keys to the contemporary services: email, web sites, network admin etc,
their opinions may carry more weight.

One of my other clients is bouncing back and forth with a proposal of mine
for a $10K new module and the concept of ROI comes into play. How in the
world could this MV-to-GP client justify the ROI on all the extra time and
expense to shift to GP.

Mark Johnson
- Original Message -
From: "Ross Ferris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Crystal Reports


H,

We spent 3 years developing a product (CrystalLynx) that allowed us to work
with Crystal - it automatically "normalized" the data for you, so I think it
would be fair to say that "we used it for a while" - and you are right, I
don't want to go back (to Crystal).

Typical square peg/round hole stuff, because it DIDN'T understand mv all
that well - or maybe it was just us ! and I surely didn't like ODBC
performance (and reliability on D3 platforms).

CR is obviously a good product - #1 in it's field, but these days there ARE
products available that work with mv data in a native format, and give CR a
good run for it's money !


Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage - an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

RE: Crystal Reports

[Ross Ferris]

The "Re-compile to GUI" silver bullet just will not come - if for no other reason than 
the fact that "GUI" sits in front of an "event model", and your green screen code 
doesn't cater for any event other than the enter button !

There are many paths to the "Nirvana" of GUI (obviously I think - KNOW - that Viságe 
is the best, but I'll refrain from further direct reference), but they all take time, 
effort and money.

This investment can be greatly reduced by your ability to re-use what you already have 
in place, most notably that "smart" database design that works so well, and large 
chunks of code that do smart things.

However, I doubt that you OR your 4.5 customers have the time or money to commit to 
such a project (maybe getting them all to fund development of a single core --> but 
) - they may "think" moving to GP (or equivalent) will save them, but the client 
you are loosing may actually provide you with a real, live example of why your 
remaining customers should NOT embark on this path.

If it is eye candy you are after, why not give it to them ?

For example, have you considered adding BI/DW facilities using products like MITS or 
Viságe.BIT (the latter would also give you the infrastructure to start to develop GUI 
screens for other key areas) so that your clients get better visibility of WHERE their 
sales are coming from ?

You mentioned email - there are numerous tools available to enable you to email 
documents like Invoices, Quotes & Statements, and produce these with images, mixed 
font etc (download a free eval of our WordLynx, FaxLynx & MailLynx products if you get 
stuck :-)

It is up to YOU to update these people to the latest mv technology - no-one else is 
interested in doing this EXCEPT YOU ! Everyone else out there wants to sell them Great 
Plains !! so unless YOU start to get them to embrace what is possible, working from 
their rich mv heritage, the only thing I CAN tell you with certainty is that next you 
will have 3.5 clients, then 2.5, then ...

We all TRIED to ignore Windows & GUI - it didn't go away ! We all waited for the 
miracle/no pain GUI conversion tool - no joy !

Just remember, your FAILURE to act IS an action ! and I don't think you will like the 
consequences !

(I don't mean to single you out - you are not alone ! and whilst you may think my 
comments are harsh, I fear they could be a portent for the future)

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage - an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark Johnson
>Sent: Sunday, 18 April 2004 12:34 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Crystal Reports
>
>
>I think the greatest oversight in all of MV is the inability to re-compile
>the existing source code to a GUI equivilent. I'm smart enough to realize
>how tremendously difficult that would be. But I know that a major reason
>for
>my current dilema with this UD/Results guy going to Great Plains is the
>visual aspect of it. People taste with their eyes and most IT 20-something
>guys have never seen anything decent on a character-based screen so they
>relegate it to the sophistication of command-line DOS. While they have made
>an incorrect conclusion, their voices speak loudest. And since they hold
>the
>keys to the contemporary services: email, web sites, network admin etc,
>their opinions may carry more weight.
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Crystal Reports

[Mark Johnson]

Ross:

Your square peg, round hole analogy is pretty accurate. GP seems to be the
next step for quickbooks users.

The package that they're migrating from is Results from Microdata from the
early 1980's. I still have 4 other clients using Results as well as a
mixture of other Order entry packages/homegrown.

While I can itemize a few shortcomings of Results, it has stood the test of
time because it's still being used. Each of my 4 other Results clients have
taken their copy and evolved it in their own localized versions.

What absolutely impresses me is that none of these 4.5 clients have used
*all* of the originally installed features of Results. They use many and
have added many of their own. But the core design of Results remains true
and someone got it very correct back during its rollout. Add to the fact
that the developers didn't have a 4GL to think of, had 50MB 64K 1Mhz
machines and had to watch the compiler meticulously display those line-by
line asterisks during compiling. Plus, those programs were pretty long as
well, didn't have INCLUDES and didn't have the open CALL concept that
everyone else has. Not to mention the original 32 K record (program) size
file structure.

Only 1 of my Results clients remains on the older MCD box and oddly enough,
he has the 2nd most sophisticated deviations of my 4.5 clients. The others
are either on R90 or UD.

I think the greatest oversight in all of MV is the inability to re-compile
the existing source code to a GUI equivilent. I'm smart enough to realize
how tremendously difficult that would be. But I know that a major reason for
my current dilema with this UD/Results guy going to Great Plains is the
visual aspect of it. People taste with their eyes and most IT 20-something
guys have never seen anything decent on a character-based screen so they
relegate it to the sophistication of command-line DOS. While they have made
an incorrect conclusion, their voices speak loudest. And since they hold the
keys to the contemporary services: email, web sites, network admin etc,
their opinions may carry more weight.

One of my other clients is bouncing back and forth with a proposal of mine
for a $10K new module and the concept of ROI comes into play. How in the
world could this MV-to-GP client justify the ROI on all the extra time and
expense to shift to GP.

Mark Johnson
- Original Message -
From: "Ross Ferris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Crystal Reports


H,

We spent 3 years developing a product (CrystalLynx) that allowed us to work
with Crystal - it automatically "normalized" the data for you, so I think it
would be fair to say that "we used it for a while" - and you are right, I
don't want to go back (to Crystal).

Typical square peg/round hole stuff, because it DIDN'T understand mv all
that well - or maybe it was just us ! and I surely didn't like ODBC
performance (and reliability on D3 platforms).

CR is obviously a good product - #1 in it's field, but these days there ARE
products available that work with mv data in a native format, and give CR a
good run for it's money !


Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mike Randall
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 5:41 AM
>To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: Crystal Reports
>
>Crystal is indeed a very fine product.  It is a banded report writer with a
>multitude of programmability.   Multivalued data is indeed a pain in the
>neck.   Normalize the data 1st and you'll find Crystal a joy to use with
>output, features and polish that MV can't come close to.  The 'problems'
>that your users are facing can be addressed with Crystal code (VB syntax or
>Crystal's scripting syntax).  After using it a while, you'll never want to
>go back...
>
>Mike R.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark Johnson
>Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 2:51 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Crystal Reports
>
>One of my clients wants to connect Crystal Reports to their UD database to
>apparently give greater access to the data that they sometimes deem as
>hidden and only accessable through me.
>
>This client converted to Great Plains 6 weeks ago (SQL based) and their CR
>experts were struggling with duplicating some of the more mundane reports
>that already exist in UD. A monthly sales tax summary (by jurisdiction)
>took
>the GP guy 3 days futzing with CR using GP's data.
>
>How much trouble are they going to get in trying to use MV'd data from the
>UD system (ODBC) if they have so much trouble with more 'normalized' data.
>Everyone seems to think that CR is a magic pill and once attached to a SQL
>database, the sophisticated reports simply roll off.
>
>I'm trying to strongly propose a data warehouse concept whereby the day's
>sales data gets export

RE: Crystal Reports

[Ross Ferris]

H,

We spent 3 years developing a product (CrystalLynx) that allowed us to work with 
Crystal - it automatically "normalized" the data for you, so I think it would be fair 
to say that "we used it for a while" - and you are right, I don't want to go back (to 
Crystal).

Typical square peg/round hole stuff, because it DIDN'T understand mv all that well - 
or maybe it was just us ! and I surely didn't like ODBC performance (and reliability 
on D3 platforms).

CR is obviously a good product - #1 in it's field, but these days there ARE products 
available that work with mv data in a native format, and give CR a good run for it's 
money !


Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mike Randall
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 5:41 AM
>To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: Crystal Reports
>
>Crystal is indeed a very fine product.  It is a banded report writer with a
>multitude of programmability.   Multivalued data is indeed a pain in the
>neck.   Normalize the data 1st and you'll find Crystal a joy to use with
>output, features and polish that MV can't come close to.  The 'problems'
>that your users are facing can be addressed with Crystal code (VB syntax or
>Crystal's scripting syntax).  After using it a while, you'll never want to
>go back...
>
>Mike R.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark Johnson
>Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 2:51 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Crystal Reports
>
>One of my clients wants to connect Crystal Reports to their UD database to
>apparently give greater access to the data that they sometimes deem as
>hidden and only accessable through me.
>
>This client converted to Great Plains 6 weeks ago (SQL based) and their CR
>experts were struggling with duplicating some of the more mundane reports
>that already exist in UD. A monthly sales tax summary (by jurisdiction)
>took
>the GP guy 3 days futzing with CR using GP's data.
>
>How much trouble are they going to get in trying to use MV'd data from the
>UD system (ODBC) if they have so much trouble with more 'normalized' data.
>Everyone seems to think that CR is a magic pill and once attached to a SQL
>database, the sophisticated reports simply roll off.
>
>I'm trying to strongly propose a data warehouse concept whereby the day's
>sales data gets exported and updated into their prior application for the
>sake of the multitude of existing, proven reports in MV. If these guys took
>3 days for a simple tax report, how can CR fabricate temporary tables for
>the sake of these consolidated sophisticated MV reports?
>
>I'm just interested in hearing of some experiences. This client is too
>stubborn to go back from GP and may even disregard their entire MV system
>completely. I really have nothing to lose if I insult them.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Crystal Reports

[Ross Ferris]

>I'm trying to strongly propose a data warehouse concept whereby the day's
>sales data gets exported and updated into their prior application for the
>sake of the multitude of existing, proven reports in MV. If these guys took
>3 days for a simple tax report, how can CR fabricate temporary tables for
>the sake of these consolidated sophisticated MV reports?
>
>I'm just interested in hearing of some experiences. This client is too
>stubborn to go back from GP and may even disregard their entire MV system
>completely. I really have nothing to lose if I insult them.

Don't hold your breath --> keeping UD going would be an indictment on the people that 
made the decision in the first place - and they still sign the checks, right ?

I do feel your pain though . I've seen companies that wouldn't spend $10K on 
modifications jump to what they perceive as a "better/mainstream" product, and proceed 
to spend $500K to try to make it work . and 3 years down the track they still have 
a mess !

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark Johnson
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 4:51 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Crystal Reports
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: PI Open is going away

[Ross Ferris]

Don't forget to mention "the Drumheller(? Drumhella?) Trick !"

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Results
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 4:45 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: PI Open is going away
>
>PI/Open-ers,
>I'd like to write a 'memorial' article for Database Trends
>acknowledging the PI and Prime contributions to the community as a
>whole. Would a few of you be willing to write up some brief paragraphs
>on things like:
>"So I said to Mike, we'll call them "I Descriptors" and he said it
>would never catch on..."
>
>In other words, I'd like to collect some personal stories about how
>these functions came about. If I get enough (and enough variety) I'll
>present it to my editors. Contributions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>--
> Sincerely,
>  Charles Barouch
>  www.KeyAlly.com
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: UV to Text Conversion Standard?

[Ross Ferris]

>
>Best answer: don't use sub-values.  They're evil, anyway.
>

I've been somewhat "surprised" over recent years by the number of software companies 
that not only use SVM, but go down a level or 2 from that !

If you are using the "standard" inbuilt facilities of ANY of the mv systems, they have 
never coped well with SVM - but I wouldn't necessarily say they are "evil". Indeed 
some of the ways I've seemed them used to map real world problems simplify the issues 
at hand, and can help render better performance.

To NOT use multi-values in an MV database to a certain extent diminishes one of the 
major arguments for using mv in the first place, doesn't it ? You are already 
compromising your design (perhaps) because of your choice of tool.

Perhaps we should all capitulate & start to use flat CSV files ?

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Geoffrey Mitchell
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 4:06 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?
>
>To my knowledge, no.  Not in Universe anyway.  I *think* (from the docs,
>I've never played with it) that UniData has a way to map sub-values to
>ODBC/JDBC, but UniVerse does not.  Multivalues work fine, but it doesn't
>go any lower than that.
>
>Best answer: don't use sub-values.  They're evil, anyway.
>
>On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 12:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Thank you, but what is the exact method to do this?
>> I have never seen a "view of SVM level data" that actually works.
>> Using ODBC or any other tool
>> And by "works" I mean that it understands the relationship of the SVM
>data to the VM data and the relationship of that to the AM data and
>properly processes table-in-a-table configurations for editing, etc.
>>
>> It's one thing to use BY-EXP to understand VM level tables, but can you
>really use some tool to understand SVM embedded data at that second table
>level?
>> Will
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 4/16/2004 1:03:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > Will,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if this is what you're asking but all it does is create a
>> > "virtual" view of the data into 1nf tables that Excel (in this case)
>sees
>> > and understands.
>> >
>> > Note: I have only done this with UniData and D3 and I know UniVerse
>does it
>> > a little differently.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Colin Alfke
>> > Calgary, Alberta Canada
>> >
>> > "Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that you can't fix
>it"
>> >
>> > Stu Pickles
>> >
>> >
>> > >-Original Message-
>> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:26 AM
>> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >Subject: Re: UV to Text Conversion Standard?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >In a message dated 4/15/2004 12:52:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> You can use the UniVerse ODBC Driver to pull the data from
>> > >UniVerse to
>> > >> Excel, using correct dictionaries UniVerse will normalise
>> > >the data and sort
>> > >> out the VM and SVM for you.
>> > >
>> > >Jonathan can you give a exact method for "sorting of
>> > SVM's"
>> > >within Universe
>> > >using an ODBC (or really any tool).
>> > >I am not aware of this
>> > >Thank you
>> > >Will
>> > --
>> > u2-users mailing list
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>--
>Geoffrey Mitchell   314-684-1062
>Programmer/Analyst  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Knights Direct
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

[Ross Ferris]

>   Not saying all businesses are this way.  But I'm saying I don't think
>that is where most of the traditional multi-value market is focused.

BUT, unless we help our customers get there - OR find new customers that WANT to get 
there, we (as a market) run the risk that OUR existing customers will loose market 
share & be consumed by more forward thinking competitors, which in turn may mean that 
we too are out of a career !

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 3:53 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)
>
>   I'm just not seeing a great demand for this sort of thing from the
>majority 10 to 100 user businesses that typically utilize multi-value
>products.  I mean some of my clients, and myself are only just NOW playing
>with Triggers and transaction sets.  Most application are very business
>oriented, and even getting them up and running with FTPing a product list
>to a web page, or browsing documentation in HTML or PDF format is a major
>leap forward.
>   Not saying all businesses are this way.  But I'm saying I don't think
>that is where most of the traditional multi-value market is focused.
>Will
>
>
>In a message dated 4/16/2004 1:09:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Well no, not really. I was thinking more in the line of "New application
>> development that would like to provide the ability to utilize modern
>> Internet protocols". A web presence would be included in that - but was
>> actually furthest from my mind.
>>
>> B2B interaction for example. Or even internal application integration.
>Being
>> able to publish web services etc. etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:28 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 4/15/2004 4:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>
>> > Without this ability, I see no reason why anyone would commence new
>> > application development on the U2 platform. Since you will always
>> > require another application server (Websphere, Tomcat, Bea, Jboss,
>> > etc.) to talk to the U2 server, that would in-turn interact with the
>> > database.
>> >
>>
>> I'm sure Mark you mean "New application development that must have a web
>> presence".  Unless you feel that all application development must have a
>web
>>
>> presence.
>> Will
>> --
>
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

[ot] RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

[Ross Ferris]

Perhaps you should check out our Viságe product :-)

Give yourself a modern" visual drag & drop interface (ie: drag items from your UV 
dictionary definition & drop them on a form - inherit edits etc from dictionary, but 
you can override if necessary), that uses "internet technologies" (like HTTP for data 
transport, XML for data abstraction etc) and has features NOW that Microsoft are 
talking about adding to Visual Studio "next year" (integrated BI/Data warehouse 
capabilities leveraging SQL server capabilities - though Viságe.BIT will happily work 
with data from your U2 database)

We've also taken the liberty of extending the mv model in a few areas (like supporting 
>100 levels of nesting, which will "map" every "real world" complex XML document I've 
seen, with room to grow!), and our active code reduction philosophy (powered by 
Snippet Technology) means that the amount of "real code" that has to be written for a 
complex system is minimal - and system systems can be codeless now !

Drop by www.stamina.com.au and follow the Visage links if you are interested, or drop 
us a line and we can send you out a test drive CD if you like.

Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage - an Evolution in Software Development

>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Daly, Mark
>Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2004 3:10 AM
>To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)
>
>Well no, not really. I was thinking more in the line of "New application
>development that would like to provide the ability to utilize modern
>Internet protocols". A web presence would be included in that - but was
>actually furthest from my mind.
>
>B2B interaction for example. Or even internal application integration.
>Being
>able to publish web services etc. etc.
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:28 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)
>
>
>In a message dated 4/15/2004 4:37:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> Without this ability, I see no reason why anyone would commence new
>> application development on the U2 platform. Since you will always
>> require another application server (Websphere, Tomcat, Bea, Jboss,
>> etc.) to talk to the U2 server, that would in-turn interact with the
>> database.
>>
>
>I'm sure Mark you mean "New application development that must have a web
>presence".  Unless you feel that all application development must have a
>web
>
>presence.
>Will
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>--
>u2-users mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 9/04/2004
 
--
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

[Daly, Mark]

That's my point.  In one sense I see what Will means. There are a lot of U2
shops out there that are happy as can be with what they have.

However I've also had experience on several sites where the company has
considered the U2 application a 'silo' application that is holding them back
technology wise.

Now, a lot of that can be resolved by throwing up Tomcat and UOJ and 'bam' -
their old U2 app is suddenly capable of doing anything modern technology
offers.

So. It would be nice to do away with the necessity to add something like
Tomcat. Don't you think?

We've had some great recent additions to client type utilities in the form
of callHTTP and the SOAP client. Now lets see U2 mature into a modern day
application server.


-Original Message-
From: Dawn M. Wolthuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 8:05 PM
To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
Subject: RE: Database decoupling (Was: Future of U2)

I wouldn't consider using 1NF data for new web services efforts if you don't
have to -- why to mess around with mapping to and from flat tables?  U2 is
still old technology but in some ways it is closer to new technology than
the brittle RDBMS solutions that are fading (maybe not fast, but SQL is now
in the bucket with COBOL -- lots of it out there so it isn't going away, but
not where I would put any new dollars).  --dawn

Dawn M. Wolthuis
Tincat Group, Inc.
www.tincat-group.com

Take and give some delight today.

-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Re: Converting static files into Dynamic

[Susan Lynch]

From: "Martin Scholl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: UD: Converting static files into Dynamic


> Is there an easy way to convert static files into dynamic files?
> I just found that one file, that I created as static tends to grow
> large.  I want to shield my customers from and DBA work and rather have
> them as dynamic.
> UD 6.0 on Windows
>

The memresize command works very well at this.  See the Unidata commands
manual.  I am assuming you have determined whether you want DYNAMIC KEYONLY
or DYNAMIC KEYDATA, and are aware that you will still want to resize the
file periodically, because dynamic files (at least in Unidata, don't know
about UV) tend to grow but only shrink if the file is cleared or resized.

Suggestion: don't forget the MEMORY parameter on the memresize - it really
helps speed up the process!

Susan M. Lynch
F.W. Davison & Company, Inc.



-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

UD: Converting static files into Dynamic

[Martin Scholl]

Is there an easy way to convert static files into dynamic files?
I just found that one file, that I created as static tends to grow
large.  I want to shield my customers from and DBA work and rather have
them as dynamic.
UD 6.0 on Windows

Martin Scholl
President HIPAAsuite
18910 New Hampshire Ave
Brinklow, MD 20862
301-924-5537  Phone
301-570-0139  Fax
301-613-9572  Cell 

 

  _  

My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter 
3799 spam mails have been blocked so far.
Download free SPAMfighter   today! 
-- 
u2-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users