Re: [Firebird-net-provider] [Patch] 1.7 changes to connect againstFirebird 2.1

2008-10-10 Thread Ralf Giese
Jiri Cincura wrote: I'll try to prepare release during this month (I'll have to find some FW1.1 machine :D). Some weeks ago I did some minor code changes to fix DNET-87. http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/DNET-87#action_17295 It would be nice if you could fix the issue before releasing.

Re: [Firebird-net-provider] [ANN] FirebirdClient 2.1.0 released

2007-11-26 Thread Ralf Giese
Hello, Jiri Cincura wrote Just small bug fix log: Release Notes - .NET Data provider - Version 2.1.0 ** Bug * [DNET-87] - Error invalid transaction handle I've just run a Test with released Version. Unfortunately the the problem still exists. Version 2.1.0 is tagged as Fix Version

Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Error invalid transaction handle - demo

2007-04-10 Thread Ralf Giese
Hello Carlos, It's fine if i test this using latest 2.1.0 sources and .net 2.0 ?? I've just repeated tests with demo program using latest 2.1.0 sources on .Net 2.0.50727. Errors occured as before. Regards, Ralf - Take

Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Error invalid transaction handle

2007-04-02 Thread Ralf Giese
Hello Carlos, I've build a simple test application to reproduce the behavior. Can you send it to my private email, please ?? I did so immediately after you ask me. Have you got my email? Or you can fill a bug in the firebird tracker and post the sample there. Should I do this too?

Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Error invalid transaction handle

2007-04-02 Thread Ralf Giese
Hello Carlos, I did so immediately after you ask me. Have you got my email? I haven't. It's mysterious ... I sent it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've created a bug issue (DNET-87) in firebird tracker. Regards Ralf - Take

[Firebird-net-provider] Error invalid transaction handle

2007-03-20 Thread Ralf Giese
We've developed a client-server application using .NET Data Provider 1.6.3 in the data layer of the server. Each client has a separate data access object on the server and is calling it via .NET Remoting. The application worked fine in a production environment with about 12 clients for several