FiveTech Support Forums

Is it possible i'm encountering saltuary problems accessing files dbf (using DBFNTX) with a procedure that works fine (since many years) compiled with an older version of FWH?? (Rev. 1506 to be precise)
I purchase upgrade FWH 1805 BUILD 1 last august and two days ago i recompile this procedure with new this new version without changing nothing, and casually from that moment my customer send me several errors using the procedure ("workarea not in use" or "alias does not exist" and similar...)!! And the errors seems come out casually.
Not finding errors apparently in my procedure, yesterday i come back and recompile my procedure (without changing nothing) with the older version of FWH (1506), and this morning my customer say me that has not had any problems so far! So, can it depend on Version 1805 Build 1 of FWH???
Now i have downloaded last version of FWH (1807), but now i'm a bit scared recompiling: the (casual?) errors accessing dbf will come back out again?

Thank you.

This is surprising. What we can assure you is that FWH does in no way interfere with the functionality of any RDD (eg DBFNTX,DBFCDX,etc). That is totally handled by (x)Harbour.

Strangely you are experiencing problems with 18.05 that were not existing with 1506. Without knowing more it is extremely difficult to guess what must be happening, when we have not heard of any such issues from any other user.

To start with, will you please let us know more about:
1) Are you using Harbour or xHarbour?
2) The version of (x)Harbour
3) bcc compiler version
4) Any 3rd party libraries you are linking with your application
5) Any log files generated during the building of application with 1805 or 1807
6) Are you using TDatabase class or TData class in your application?
7) error.log files generated when your client or you encountered the errors (if you still have them)
8 ) Can you identify what modules in your application are generating these errors?

Note: If you have many such log files, we will indicate to you how to send to us.

We thank you for your patience and request you to help to locate the problems.

Hi,

Where errors are occurring ? xBrowse, Dialog, etc...

Perhaps, simply is a bad practicse coding prg supported by old fwh versions.

My 2 eur cents.

max wrote:use customer shared
database dbcustomer
dbcustomer:load()

Enrico Maria Giordano wrote:

max wrote:use customer shared
database dbcustomer
dbcustomer:load()

So the problem could also be database class.

EMG

Ok.
So there was a possible problem in FWH 1805 for TDatabase class?
Just to know, because the application installed to my customer is mission-critical and I would like to avoid problems from him as far as possible.
Thank you.

max wrote:Ok.
So there was a possible problem in FWH 1805 for TDatabase class?
Just to know, because the application installed to my customer is mission-critical and I would like to avoid problems from him as far as possible.
Thank you.

Between version 15.xx and 18.xx, there were changes made to tDatabase. They are discussed on this forum in various threads. Included in them were issues of files being closed automatically within the tDatabase class rather than waiting for a command to do so. This means that the first record shows, is acted upon, and then the file is closed so you get the access issue for the second record in your procedure.

Also, you are using DBFNTX. I think most people use DBFCDX so that might explain why there are no reports from other users about issues.

Included in them were issues of files being closed automatically within the tDatabase class rather than waiting for a command to do so. This means that the first record shows, is acted upon, and then the file is closed so you get the access issue for the second record in your procedure.

(x)Harbour's DBFNTX and DBFCDX both are equally reilable and it is not necessary to migrate for reasons of reliability alone.

As far as TDatabase issues are concerned, you are safe with 18.06 onwards.

There are reasons why CDXs are better than NTXs such as CDXs are smaller, faster, all indexes for a dbf can be placed in the same file, and you can use scopes. If you are interested in any of those features then it is worth upgrading.

Once I tried CDXs, I never used NTXs again.

James Bott wrote:There are reasons why CDXs are better than NTXs such as CDXs are smaller, faster, all indexes for a dbf can be placed in the same file, and you can use scopes.

Enrico wrote: Scopes can be also used with DBFNTX

No James, i use scope with DBFNTX for a long time, it's not new.