Please clarify the BCB5 situation...

Hi

I've been away from these newsgroups for (too) long, busy working on a
non Nexus/BCB product and have now returned to my BCB/Nexus product,
only to find that the situation has changed a little...

Am I right in thinking that changing the Nexus source from 'virtual' to
'dynamic' will fix the problems or are there other gotchas lurking in
the shadows?

As changing one word to another (with the previously mentioned macro) is
no big deal I wonder if there are other things I should be aware of?

I'm glad to see that Nexus will provide support for existing BCB5 users
but I wonder how they can both support us and not produce a working BCB5
version - I would have thought one went with the other?

For me, and for many others, going to BCB6 is just not an option - a
cursory glance of Borland related newsgroups highlights that there are
more issues with BCB6 than I care to mention... True, BCB5 has its
issues, but I now have a working code base in BCB5 and the pain of
trying to get it BCB6 compatible is not appealing, especially as I am
aware that it may not even be possible.

If I can't be sure of a stable Nexus environment for BCB5 I may have to
scrap my current project with some 4 month's worth of work going down
the drain... not an appealing prospect at all. I only changed from
FF1.57 to Nexus because I wanted a supported DB environment. The irony
being that FF1.57 did everything I needed it to...

Currently, because of my other commitments, I am working with Nexus 1.03
and have not noticed anything untoward (yet). Can I assume that the
basic usable of the Server, SQL, Session, Table and SQL components is
OK?
--
Andy

> Am I right in thinking that changing the Nexus source from 'virtual'
> to 'dynamic' will fix the problems or are there other gotchas lurking
> in the shadows?

I guess you will find out if you test it. We have no plans to try changing
all the method calls and thus we have not tested.

> As changing one word to another (with the previously mentioned macro)
> is no big deal I wonder if there are other things I should be aware
> of?

Browse this group; Rodrigo or other users might have comments here.

> I'm glad to see that Nexus will provide support for existing BCB5
> users but I wonder how they can both support us and not produce a
> working BCB5 version - I would have thought one went with the other?

In practice, we will incorporate minor fixes for v1 when provided.
Unfortunately, there doesnt seem to exist a BCB5 "trick" that makes the
problems go away without us changing the whole codebase around.

> Currently, because of my other commitments, I am working with Nexus
> 1.03 and have not noticed anything untoward (yet). Can I assume that
> the basic usable of the Server, SQL, Session, Table and SQL
> components is OK?

I would definitely try to keep up with the current version.

> Additionally, is there a list of the affected functions/areas? This

> would help me to determine the impact of this issue.


Such a list does not exist, other than in the postings here. If needed, I
would suggest that you BCB5 users throw hints into a BCB5 FAQ document and
put it on the public.binaries group.




--

Eivind Bakkestuen [NDD]
Please, no email unless requested.
Search Borland and third-party newsgroups here: www.tamaracka.com

> Currently, because of my other commitments, I am working with Nexus 1.03
> and have not noticed anything untoward (yet). Can I assume that the
> basic usable of the Server, SQL, Session, Table and SQL components is
> OK?

I use Nexus with BCB5 and BCB6 without problems. Any. Zero.

I don't use much fancy stuff, mostly the usual and normal database
operations. From time to time I had to do a reestructure utility when
working with FF but now that I can do that with SQL DDL I find it a much
easy and fast way to do it. Anyway, I have some test apps that do that to
test the virtual problems found before.

About BCB6: I haven't found any serious problem with it. If any. But, I also
didn't found any problem with any previous version (except from the
ocassional List index out of bounds and problems like that, that, after 2 or
3 times, I just get used to ignore them). Anyway, I won't move my current
project to BCB6 as it is too big and too involved with some other third
party components that I feel it will be too complicated. And, don't fix if
ain't broken!. My new projects though are with BCB6 and I have no regrets.
Also, I quite like the fact that it doesn't "smart" change the final output
and those paths <g> wich is maybe my biggest complain about the previous
versions. That it looses sometimes the debug info and I can't debug it...
well... it's as simple as running the program from the Start|Run and
Attaching to process. Another thing I don't notice anymore.

But, that's just me!

Regards,

--
Rodrigo Gómez [NDX]
rgomezNO@SPAMndx.nexusdb.com (remove NO and SPAM from the address)
http://rgomez.msa.com.mx/gallery/


"Andy Bell" <Andy@nospam.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:ukq0j3IcI5hAFwkG@profotosoftware.com...
> Hi
>
> I've been away from these newsgroups for (too) long, busy working on a
> non Nexus/BCB product and have now returned to my BCB/Nexus product,
> only to find that the situation has changed a little...
>
> Am I right in thinking that changing the Nexus source from 'virtual' to
> 'dynamic' will fix the problems or are there other gotchas lurking in
> the shadows?
>
> As changing one word to another (with the previously mentioned macro) is
> no big deal I wonder if there are other things I should be aware of?
>
> I'm glad to see that Nexus will provide support for existing BCB5 users
> but I wonder how they can both support us and not produce a working BCB5
> version - I would have thought one went with the other?
>
> For me, and for many others, going to BCB6 is just not an option - a
> cursory glance of Borland related newsgroups highlights that there are
> more issues with BCB6 than I care to mention... True, BCB5 has its
> issues, but I now have a working code base in BCB5 and the pain of
> trying to get it BCB6 compatible is not appealing, especially as I am
> aware that it may not even be possible.
>
> If I can't be sure of a stable Nexus environment for BCB5 I may have to
> scrap my current project with some 4 month's worth of work going down
> the drain... not an appealing prospect at all. I only changed from
> FF1.57 to Nexus because I wanted a supported DB environment. The irony
> being that FF1.57 did everything I needed it to...
>
> Currently, because of my other commitments, I am working with Nexus 1.03
> and have not noticed anything untoward (yet). Can I assume that the
> basic usable of the Server, SQL, Session, Table and SQL components is
> OK?
> --
> Andy

> Currently, because of my other commitments, I am working with Nexus 1.03
> and have not noticed anything untoward (yet). Can I assume that the
> basic usable of the Server, SQL, Session, Table and SQL components is
> OK?

I naturally can't guarantee, *but* the normal usage seems to work fine. The
problems come in mainly when you try to extend the server with monitors,
plugins, ... as they need overriding of abstract methods and registration of
classes into the system. That is the main problem area. If you don't want to
use these functionality you should be fine and much better off than with FF1.x.


--

Hannes Danzl [NexusDB Developer]
Newsgroup archive at http://www.tamaracka.com/search.htm

Thanks for the feedback guys...

From the research I did on this this afternoon, I concluded that the
problems would mainly surface in the event of inheritance... Not an
issue for me as I have no need to extend the DB's functionality.

--
Andy Bell

"Andy Bell" <Andy@nospam.co.uk> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:ukq0j3IcI5hAFwkG@profotosoftware.com...

> Am I right in thinking that changing the Nexus source from 'virtual'
to
> 'dynamic' will fix the problems or are there other gotchas lurking in
> the shadows?

yes it will. at the cost of some stall

> As changing one word to another (with the previously mentioned macro)
is
> no big deal I wonder if there are other things I should be aware of?

cannot comment since have no nexus

> For me, and for many others, going to BCB6 is just not an option - a

agreed. just look through QC reports..