FiveTech Support Forums

FiveWin / Harbour / xBase community
Board index FiveWin for Harbour/xHarbour What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 01:45 PM
What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 07:12 PM

I am curious what FWH version people are using for actual production work ( released product ).

The latest released version is 17.09, however, I know several of us had to re-vert to 17.06 or .07 database.prg to resolve problems with the new database revisions. I'm wondering if anyone is able to use just 17.09 in their production work with .dbf files, and without problems. If so, did you make any modifications to give it stability ?

If you were not able to get it to work properly, what are you now using for your work on released product.

Thanks for the input. I guess I'm wondering if I'm the only one having issues ( maybe I should retire ) or if the problems are more universal.

Tim

Tim Stone
http://www.MasterLinkSoftware.com
http://www.autoshopwriter.com
timstone@masterlinksoftware.com
Using: FWH 23.10 with Harbour 3.2.0 / Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2022-24 32/64 bit
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 02:17 AM
Re: What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 08:48 PM

Currently , I'm using FWH 17.07.

Sds,
Vilian F. Arraes
vilian@vfatec.com.br
Belém-Pa-Brazil
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 01:45 PM
Re: What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:42 PM

I see 17.11 posted today but there is very little addressed in it, and nothing related to the database.prg issues raised in September by many people here. Thus I might suspect I missed some notes about how to resolve those problems.

Tim Stone
http://www.MasterLinkSoftware.com
http://www.autoshopwriter.com
timstone@masterlinksoftware.com
Using: FWH 23.10 with Harbour 3.2.0 / Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2022-24 32/64 bit
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:04 AM
Re: What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 04:29 AM
TimStone wrote:I am curious what FWH version people are using for actual production work ( released product ).

The latest released version is 17.09, however, I know several of us had to re-vert to 17.06 or .07 database.prg to resolve problems with the new database revisions. I'm wondering if anyone is able to use just 17.09 in their production work with .dbf files, and without problems. If so, did you make any modifications to give it stability ?

If you were not able to get it to work properly, what are you now using for your work on released product.

Thanks for the input. I guess I'm wondering if I'm the only one having issues ( maybe I should retire ) or if the problems are more universal.

Tim

I use 17.09
I use both MySQL and DBF in my projects. For DBF, I use TDatabase, so far I haven't experienced any issues.

Regards
Anser
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 05:54 AM
Re: What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 05:23 AM

I am using FWH 17.09 for my production work with out any problem.
I feel that TDatabase Class of 17.09 is the safest one.

Because It has brought out some of the obscure bugs in my earlier
programs.

Posts: 2706
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 01:50 PM
Re: What FWH version are you using for production work ?
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 04:56 PM

Tim

I am using Fwh 1707 and I gave up on .Dbf years ago, all my HIPAA ( state clients ) had security issues of having .Dbf(s) on their network shares where anyone could open a .dbf with Excel or could maliciously delete all the datafiles in one fell swoop.

I went strictly with Ado converting all my code to Sql and my database(s) of choice are either a ( secure ) MsSql Server or ( the stand alone un-secure option for clients that can not afford an Enterprise RDMS ) Ms Access ..

All I use .dbf for is when I need to create reports and then I only use temp .dbf in Exclusive mode .. said bye to OptLocks many years ago and never looked back.

Rick Lipkin

Continue the discussion