N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Alan Secker:
>
> "Alan Secker" <alan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:qrqdnU7k6IxXGyzanZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I have just had a program crash at a commit
>> instruction. The code looks like this:
>>
>> name->(reclock())
>
> ... do you mean "rlock()" ?
>
No reclock() comes from an article in Clipper Adviser
going back yonks. I have used it since forever. It is
an enhanced locking scheme.
All the users use the same program in the same way including
the same RDD.
I do know that if name->trade_code was indexed, the
next line would crash the program but it isn't.
I will just have to do some of-line testing.
>> name->trade_code := space(4)
>> name->(dbcommit())
>> name->(dbunlock())
>>
>> Although I have use this order of statements all over
>> this (huge) program without any problems before, is
>> my ordering incorrect?
>
> I don't think so, it seems the correct order. Some things in the
> NG indicate that though you have locked and unlocked, changes
> won't hit the disk any sooner than you commit.
Are you saying commit is literally a waste of space?
>
> However rlock() returns a value indicating success. Someone
> might have already locked the record (or the file), or WinDoze
> may have decided capriciously that it needed to tell you "no
> way".
> http://www.itlnet.net/Programming/Program/Reference/c53g01c/ng96d06.html
>
> Also, do all of your competing users of this file use the same
> locking schemes? In other words, are they all running the same
> RDD, in the same version of Clipper?
>
> David A. Smith
Thanks
Alan
|
