More EIP woes

[spot1701]

As I have previously reported, the browse does not refreshing following an EIP entry.
The field is setup as this:



The browse is this:



I enter a value and press tab, the browse does not change order:



BUT if I change the value of that field again:



If I then refresh the browser window manually, I find that the wrong entry has been changed:



If you look at the limit column, you will see that the first entry I changed "Name 7, Limit = 2" is now at the bottom of the list, where is should of been to start with. But the entry I just changed, "Name 3", was actually another record Limit = 4.

[Bruce]

Is the browse file loaded or page loaded?

What is the unique key on this browse?

What fields are in that key?

What field are you sorting on?

Cheers
Bruce

[spot1701]

Is the browse file loaded or page loaded?

Doesn't matter.

What is the unique key on this browse?
What fields are in that key?
What field are you sorting on?

All based on web1 example.

[Bruce]

Thanks Bryan, I'll experiment with that example.

Cheers
Bruce

[spot1701]

PR 14
Problem 1: I notice that if "Refresh whole browse after server code runs" is ticked, then the browse DOES refresh. This is nice, but the issue I noted above STILL happens if you don't have that tick box ticked.
I have a browse with many EIP fields and I don't want the whole browse refreshed after each entry.

Problem 2: If the browse is part of a form, then the refresh after EIP stops working completely, and we're back to square one again.

Might I suggest you include an EIP example in future, as a simple example would of highlighted these issues awhile ago and would of stopped me getting burnt .

[Bruce]

Hi Bryan,

I can see the issue with the records being altered multiple times. I've made a change for PR15 which solves this.

However the solution is to revert to an earlier technique for edit-in-place (File based rather than View based). Trouble is, I can't recall off-hand why I moved from File based to View Based in the first place. So I expect there will be some other issues with EIP in very specific situations.

So anyone who has a repeat-problem (or a new one for that matter) with EIP and PR15 should please let me know.

The example is on my list of things to do.

Cheers
Bruce

[spot1701]

I can see the issue with the records being altered multiple times. I've made a change for PR15 which solves this.
However the solution is to revert to an earlier technique for edit-in-place (File based rather than View based). Trouble is, I can't recall off-hand why I moved from File based to View Based in the first place. So I expect there will be some other issues with EIP in very specific situations.

I hope I mis-read your implication here, because it does concern me that you would regress a change without knowing why, and would knowingly release an update that will probably break something that was working.

[Bruce]

That's why they're called pre-releases....

Cheers
Bruce

[spot1701]

That's why they're called pre-releases....

Normally I would agree, when there was an alternative. But what would you suggest? The last Gold release was 3.40 in 2005. There is no Gold version 4, and 4.31 has been in the works for at least 6 months.
At the moment, there is very little else I can use but Nettalk as my boss will not entertain the waste of resource if we changed development now.
You are in the enviable position of producing one of the best products for creating web applications via Clarion. But please do not fall into the arrogance trap, as this attitude tends to come back and bite you.
Am I the only customer whose expectation is that  this project is far beyond the alpha stage? PR 9 or 10 was supposed to be at Cadidtate Release level?
So by now, I am definitely expecting each subsequent release to be more stable. And I certainly don't expect anymore "suck it and see" updates.
Maybe I'm being naive, but frustration leads to impatience.

[Bruce]

Hi Bryan,

I hear what you're saying, but I simply don't remember (and I don't have a record) of the exact issues that lead to the EIP change from File to View. I know some of the _advantages_ of using the View (most specifically when it comes to secondary files) but I don't recall if there were specific disadvantages of doing it via files.

Clearly a more detailed record of the various reasons for the various tweaks would be nice around about now, but alas it doesn't exist.

I agree this version has been too long in the editing stages, and with each pre-release I've tried to move closer to a final release. Indeed a final release has been the "goal" for some time now. However I try to make sure that when there is a final release it's solid enough for "everyone to use". The last few pre-releases have clearly had bugs - and as in your EIP report some of them are rather serious and require a serious structural change. This can lead to less stability in some cases rather than more. the alternative would be to "ignore" structural inadequacies, which is clearly worse.

At the moment I'm working on another structural change because of a difference between FF and IE. So something which has been "working" forever is showing a case where it fails, specifically in IE, and specifically in a certain (rather complex) setup.

Clearly I have to fix that - which will mean _at least_ a PR15 and possibly more releases after that.

The sheer volume of people now writing apps with NetTalk (including ourselves) leads to more and more complex layouts and functionality. And inevitably some of that has unforseen knock-on effects in different situations.

Look at the bright side - all the stuff you have reported has been addressed, including this EIP issue, so at least when there is a release at least your stuff will be solid.

I hope arrogance is not setting in, at least I don't think it is. I'm trying to balance more and more needs though, in more and more potential situations. It's simply impossible for me to test _every_ combination and get builds out on a reasonable schedule. Yes there's an element of doubt sometimes - but the alternative to that is no pre-releases at all, and it'd still be 56 months between builds, and the builds would be of a lower quality.

Cheers
Bruce

[spot1701]

Thanks for the reply. Most welcomed.