@ud and @ub updated

[Dennis Malen]

Bruce,

I commented out the @entsel and the 3 or 4 lines of code remained.

Bruce, I would like to publicly thank you for your clarification. I might as 
well bring out in the open what is already quite evident. Mark has chosen 
never to respond to any email I present to the list. He only chooses to 
respond in order to demean me and my programming skills. That is his right 
as it would be anyone else. I don't claim nor have I ever claimed to be as 
talented as Mark.

The problem I have had with Mark in the past, and which seems to be the 
reason he gets so upset, is that I considered his software that was to be 
used as a portal through the web to access filePro. He felt that I took up 
too much of his time. I then decided to use another product which I felt was 
more cohesive and worked a lot easier out of the box. Admittedly I did take 
up a lot of time during the evaluation phase but that is my right and 
obligation to my company. He was very upset and indicated that he should 
have obtained a retainer up front. Perhaps in that case he should have as 
neither of us knew how long the analysis of his software would take. That is 
the risk one takes in that type of situation when attempting to sell off the 
self software that needs to be more than minimally tweaked. I am sure he 
will say my programming skills were the problem. I am making this statement 
in order that those on the list will understand the context in which his 
remarks are being made.

Prior to that experience I did purchase one package from Mark which was a 
module that sent emails from UNIX. Unfortunately, he had to more than tweak 
this piece as I was on AIX UNIX and his module did not work. I did spend an 
inordinate amount of time with him in helping to fix it. It did finally work 
very well.

I am sure this email will stimulate Mark to respond with another flurry of 
reasons why my emails should not be responded to. In any event, this list is 
just a wonderful facility to help all of us no matter what their skill level 
is. The list is what makes filePro a viable platform and is an invaluable 
resource. Over the past years I have observed Mark's tirades directed at 
others and I hope his responses did not inhibit those well meaning people 
that are just seeking help. We see one problem and need it answered. Perhaps 
we go about it incorrectly at first, but that's what this list is all about. 
It puts each other back on the right track. Again, what a great tool and 
resource.

I have never written about Mark's insensitivities before and I will not 
again. I will let the list be the judge.

Mark, God Bless You! Life is too short.

Dennis Malen
516.479.5912
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Easton" <bruce at stn.com>
To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: @ud and @ub updated


> Dennis Malen wrote Monday, April 09, 2007 8:30 PM:
>> Ken,
>>
>> I'll try that and see what happens.
>>
>> Dennis Malen
>> Kenneth Brody wrote Monday, April 09, 2007 7:48 PM:
>> Subject: Re: @ud and @ub updated
>>
>>
> [..]
>> >
>> > Run with the debugger on, and single-step the entire @KEY process. 
>> > What
>> > lines are executed?
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>
> Yes - please.  It's like stabbing in the dark if you don't simplify.
>
> And Dennis, you said you commented out @entsel a bunch of times, but
> you never answered whether or not you commented out the actual label or
> just the code that it runs.   We need clarity here.
>
> And Mark, yes I think everyone understands Ken says @key puts the user
> in update mode.   Yes, we've known that for a while now, but doesn't
> appear to be the issue here.  Based on what he has said so far, the
> problem does not appear to be in @key (unless program flow is not
> what he thinks and has conveyed).
>
> The issue is why is his one table updating the sys fields with supposedly
> nothing other than a lookup - to move to another record in @key where
> others on the same version on other platforms are  not seeing that
> behavior (which doesn't jive with being in @update, but Ken already
> explained that if not field values are changed, he might not be
> writing the record - which is probably a good thing).
>
> There must still be something in Dennis' code that is active where
> he doesn't realize it.  And he already admitted that since he did
> reproduce the behavior we see here on another file there.  So there
> was some progress there.
>
>
> Bruce
>
> Bruce Easton
> STN, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
>
>