Hi!
Back in the day of WO 4.5 to WO 5.1, I worked on a project where we
relied on EOF's capability to order database operations. Actually we
even extended the mechanism using a database context delegate to apply
further sorting to already sorted operations.
On more recent projects, I alwa
In WO 4.5 to 5.1 it did work correctly for the purposes it was
intended for.
We added a delegate to improve sorting so that 2 concurrent injection
processes could not dead lock each others.
From the next project on, I used deferrable constraints. I don't know
why, but it sure is convenien
Chuck wrote an operation ordering delegate in Wonder to support MSSQL
(which doesn't support deferrable) that might be helpful here.
ms
On Feb 19, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
We have had to resort to deferred constraints for Oracle. For SQL
Server we
have had to disable the cons
I don't ever recall WO/EOF ordering the operations correctly in any
dependable manner. Either you do it in your code, or it is subject
to the whims of EOF implementation.
I wrote these classes so that I could use MS SQLServer which does not
support deferred constraints. See these Wonder cl
We have had to resort to deferred constraints for Oracle. For SQL Server we
have had to disable the constraints. I am certainly interested in a more
portable solution.
Dov Rosenberg
On 2/19/08 10:37 AM, "Pierre Bernard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Back in the day of WO 4.5 to WO 5.1,
I'm using Chuck's extensions with MS SQL Server and they are a
godsend. My database has all constraints turned on and WO orders its
operations perfectly. I'm pretty sure VI works well, but soon after
Chuck's fix I actually saw the light and got rid of my VI and
switched to Single Table Inhe
On Feb 19, 2008, at 9:01 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
I'm using Chuck's extensions with MS SQL Server and they are a
godsend. My database has all constraints turned on and WO orders
its operations perfectly. I'm pretty sure VI works well, but soon
after Chuck's fix I actually saw the light
