| Groups | Blog | Home |
vb.net upgrade : Upgrading VB6 VS2005
Hoi,
Some advice about VS2005 needed I have a major project written in VB6 where all database interactions are nicely combined in one ClassModule witch gave me the opportunity to work with the Connection.Execute method. The ClassInitialise makes the connection and from then all works like a charm. The module contains about 250 insert/update/select subs/functions Now, when trying to make it inVS2005, the inserts/updates subs makes no prblem to convert because the string for that are almost the same: Sub InstelFaktInitNummer(ByVal pWaarde As Integer, ByVal pCode As String) Dim strSql As String strSql = "UPDATE Dagboek SET da_nummer = " & pWaarde & " Where da_code = '" & pCode & "'" connection.Execute (strSql) End Sub So, making a command object and executenoquery instead of the connection.execute does the trick, no problem. Altough the connection will remain open as was in VB6 But...what about a function wich returns a Recordset (VB6) ?? fi: Function GetArtikelsBeheerMain() As ADODB.Recordset Dim strSql As String strSql = "SELECT ar_id, ar_code, ar_naam, ar_aantal, ar_inbestel, ar_pr, " & _ "ar_pv, ar_min, ar_max, ar_discon, " & _ "ar_lever, ar_maxkort, ar_barcode, ar_datmaak, ar_usermaak, " & _ "ar_datwijzig, ar_userwijzig FROM Artikel ORDER BY ar_code" Set GetArtikelsBeheerMain = connection.Execute(strSql) End Function Then on a (MDI child) Form i just call SET MyGrid.Datasource = DbConn.GetArtikelsBeheerMain (info....DbConn is an instance of the ClassModule) My question: How to do this last one in VB2005 ? How can i put ALL the funcions in 1 module for retrieving the database recordsets (dataset/tableset or whatever they may be called nowadays) and call/open/close them? Thanks in advance for all suggestions Jerome
Jerome,
In my opinion is the first thing you have to investigate the Connected (Ado) versus the Disconnected way of use (AdoNet), which gives you direct diferences between pessimistic and optimistic concurrency. As a sample in this http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpconoptimisticconcurrency.asp I hope that this gives some ideas Cor
Jerome,
This is an involved (but not particularly complex) problem that = we've written about for decades. There are several approaches that you = can take and ADO.NET supports most of them. What you're describing is = creating a pessimistic lock on a specific invoice. This can be done by = using transaction isolation. However, in my books I describe a number of = scenarios that don't use this approach--they design the system to = prevent collisions in the first place. This means we don't permit two = clerks to have access to the same customer at once. I describe this in = detail in my old Hitchhiker's Guide books and in ADO and ADO.NET = Examples and Best Practices.=20 --=20 ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no = rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "Jerome" <Jommeke@fake.com> wrote in message = http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=3D/library/en-us/cpguid=news:_lOvf.90604$fs4.6033515@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >=20 > "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> schreef in bericht=20 > news:e60T$SxEGHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> Jerome, >> >> In my opinion is the first thing you have to investigate the = Connected=20 >> (Ado) versus the Disconnected way of use (AdoNet), which gives you = direct=20 >> diferences between pessimistic and optimistic concurrency. >> >> As a sample in this >> >> = e/html/cpconoptimisticconcurrency.asp [quoted text, click to view] >>
>> I hope that this gives some ideas >> >> Cor >> > Hi Cor, > Thanks for the link but i was already aware of that issue about locks. > That's just one of the points! The record wich is actually on edit = schould=20 > be locked to others. > If someone is making an invoice, i certainly do not want others to = work on=20 > the same one. Wich is now the > case in NET as everyone has a copy of the same data on his pc, not = knowing=20 > that others are perhaps already doing the same. > On the other hand, there is no need to check wether the fields in the = dB are=20 > old or modified a few nanoseconds before; Update/Insert/Delete means=20 > update/insert/delete, unconditionaly and then requery the dB to have = the new=20 > data to confirm. >=20 > Regards and thanks for the thinking > Jerome >=20
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> schreef in bericht news:e60T$SxEGHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... [quoted text, click to view] > Jerome, Hi Cor,> > In my opinion is the first thing you have to investigate the Connected > (Ado) versus the Disconnected way of use (AdoNet), which gives you direct > diferences between pessimistic and optimistic concurrency. > > As a sample in this > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpconoptimisticconcurrency.asp > > I hope that this gives some ideas > > Cor > Thanks for the link but i was already aware of that issue about locks. That's just one of the points! The record wich is actually on edit schould be locked to others. If someone is making an invoice, i certainly do not want others to work on the same one. Wich is now the case in NET as everyone has a copy of the same data on his pc, not knowing that others are perhaps already doing the same. On the other hand, there is no need to check wether the fields in the dB are old or modified a few nanoseconds before; Update/Insert/Delete means update/insert/delete, unconditionaly and then requery the dB to have the new data to confirm. Regards and thanks for the thinking Jerome
Cor is right. The problem (exacerbated with JET/Access) is that race =
conditions and lazywrites, a dropped connection, a broken app and the = phase of the moon can cause the master monitor row to be lost and you're = pooched. In SQL Server (which is far more stable), we still don't = recommend this approach (although it's been tried many times). It's = simply too dangerous.=20 --=20 ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no = rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message = Jerome,news:OLZYHv8EGHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... This method you tell is as far as I can see the oldest form of a = pesimistic lock there was done. It fears direct in one thing, that is if = the computer that holds the X goes down, than you have what is called a = deadlock. There is no report back from the disconnected dataset that it = has happened and the data will only be available again as you set the X = back by hand or by a procedure. AFAIK is not the method from Bill, in Bills method can only an owner = process his parts of the data. Therefore there will never be a = concurrency problem.=20
Hi Bill,
That's indeed what i taught. As a matter of fact it is what i am doing = now with the existing application made in VB6 and access as backend. The concept is not more than a master-detail concept. The mastertabel = already contains a field called "Status" with 3 possibilitys. Lets call = it "N" means NEW_editing_allowed, "V" means = DONE_no_further_editing_allowed, "X" means = EDITING_in_progress_by_another. That way i can block the records that = should be left alone. So when a "A" is opened by someone, the Status = will be changed to "X" and updated in the dB so no one else can open the = same record. Works ok. The details are made with a Flexgrid from ComponentOne bound to a recset = with LockType =3D adLockBatchOptimistic. This way i can clear the = numeric cells when the row only contains a remark. Wich by the grid will = automatically translated to the dB as vbNull in the numeric field. What i am doing for learning VS2005, is started the same project from = scratch and with sqlServer So far all readonly datasets and sqlcommands = works perfect but that particular piece gives me some headache = concerning the binding grid-dataset-databasetable. This project will never be released however, just for trying VS NET Regards, Jerome "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht = news:uN0RA56EGHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... Jerome, This is an involved (but not particularly complex) problem that = we've written about for decades. There are several approaches that you = can take and ADO.NET supports most of them. What you're describing is = creating a pessimistic lock on a specific invoice. This can be done by = using transaction isolation. However, in my books I describe a number of = scenarios that don't use this approach--they design the system to = prevent collisions in the first place. This means we don't permit two = clerks to have access to the same customer at once. I describe this in = detail in my old Hitchhiker's Guide books and in ADO and ADO.NET = Examples and Best Practices.=20 --=20 ____________________________________ William (Bill) Vaughn Author, Mentor, Consultant Microsoft MVP INETA Speaker www.betav.com/blog/billva www.betav.com Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no = rights. __________________________________ [quoted text, click to view] "Jerome" <Jommeke@fake.com> wrote in message = http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=3D/library/en-us/cpguid=news:_lOvf.90604$fs4.6033515@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >=20 > "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> schreef in bericht=20 > news:e60T$SxEGHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> Jerome, >> >> In my opinion is the first thing you have to investigate the = Connected=20 >> (Ado) versus the Disconnected way of use (AdoNet), which gives you = direct=20 >> diferences between pessimistic and optimistic concurrency. >> >> As a sample in this >> >> = e/html/cpconoptimisticconcurrency.asp [quoted text, click to view] >>
>> I hope that this gives some ideas >> >> Cor >> > Hi Cor, > Thanks for the link but i was already aware of that issue about = locks. > That's just one of the points! The record wich is actually on edit = schould=20 > be locked to others. > If someone is making an invoice, i certainly do not want others to = work on=20 > the same one. Wich is now the > case in NET as everyone has a copy of the same data on his pc, not = knowing=20 > that others are perhaps already doing the same. > On the other hand, there is no need to check wether the fields in = the dB are=20 > old or modified a few nanoseconds before; Update/Insert/Delete means = > update/insert/delete, unconditionaly and then requery the dB to have = the new=20 > data to confirm. >=20 > Regards and thanks for the thinking > Jerome >=20
Jerome,
This method you tell is as far as I can see the oldest form of a = pesimistic lock there was done. It fears direct in one thing, that is if = the computer that holds the X goes down, than you have what is called a = deadlock. There is no report back from the disconnected dataset that it = has happened and the data will only be available again as you set the X = back by hand or by a procedure. AFAIK is not the method from Bill, in Bills method can only an owner = process his parts of the data. Therefore there will never be a = concurrency problem.=20
Yes Cor, this is 200% correct. But one has to make tradeoffs. As the =
programm is used only by 2 or 3 persons at the max, the risk is very = small and on the other hand everybody there is very much acquinted with = MSAcces so opening the tabel in Access and change the X in an A will be = no great problem. Moreover, everybody who starts the program makes a = automatic backup and another one once he/she shuts down the application Allowing only the author of that part to edit it is no option. It may = happen that one person sets up a new sales (read invoice) while another = one has to finish and print it after correcting (give discounts) it. Now...continuing on the possibility of a breakdown of a pc: If one has = already made 20 ~ 30 details in the detail table and that breakdown = occurs on the NET approach (disconnected datasets) there will be nothing = in the database! That would also be a disaster.=20 So, my point is that there will allways be a potential danger of = losing/damaging records.=20 We will see. Until now it is still a learning cycle for me, altough i = doubt if i will ever make a commercial application in NET. Comparing to = Vb6 one has to write at least the double of codelines, so it takes the = double in time wich will never be paid for in a onetime application = build on customers specifications. Jerome "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> schreef in bericht = news:OLZYHv8EGHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Jerome, This method you tell is as far as I can see the oldest form of a = pesimistic lock there was done. It fears direct in one thing, that is if = the computer that holds the X goes down, than you have what is called a = deadlock. There is no report back from the disconnected dataset that it = has happened and the data will only be available again as you set the X = back by hand or by a procedure. AFAIK is not the method from Bill, in Bills method can only an owner = process his parts of the data. Therefore there will never be a = concurrency problem.=20
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
July 2007
August 2007
October 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |