Using fixed record for processing

[GCC Consulting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial.com
>
[mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial.com]
On
> Behalf Of Jose Lerebours
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:09 PM
> To: Fairlight
> Cc: filePro Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Using fixed record for processing
> 
> Fairlight wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:36:15AM -0400, Jose Lerebours may or may not
> have
> > proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
> >> Fairlight wrote:
> >>> Uhm...because I generate 128 records -once- and never have to generate
> >>> another.  It's a control file.  There's no need for number_of_records
to
> >>> ever exceed $LICENSE_COUNT.  Ever.
> >>>
> >> Tell me how is it different from having a table with a couple hundreds
> >> records, placing an user on one of these records from simply adding a
> >> new record as needed and delete it as you are done?
> >>
> >> Also, what does record count have to do with license count?
> >
> > Jose,
> >
> > It's been a long and draining week.  I'm not up for a discussion about
this
> > with someone whose logic and reading comprehension abilities apparently
> > just entirely flew out the window, especially if I'm not getting paid
very
> > good money to do so.
> >
> > At this point, I don't really give a fig whether you see my point or
not.
> > Be my guest...preach on in blissful ignorance.
> >
> > In short, phuque this.
> >
> > Discussion over.
> >
> 
> Yes, I am everything you can think of me because that is the world you
> live in and I will not be dragged down there.
> 
> I do not care what you call me nor what you think of me, I still insist
> that you cannot have two or more people sitting on the same record and
> if you are running processes that target record 1 to run out of, you are
> effectively running as a single user mode - if only for that process.
> 
> If you misunderstood my point, you could at least come back and say "I
> missed that - no, that is not what you said - and paste/quote my
> original quote.
> 
> And as a final word, it's been a long and draining week.  I'm not up for
> a discussion about this with an irrational person whose logic and
> reading comprehension abilities apparently flew out the window,
> especially if I'm not getting paid any money to do so.  Time for me to
> go have my medicine ... and lookup the meaning of the word "phuque".
> 
> Live long and prosper ...  V


OK guys,

There is a solution to this scenario suggested some time ago by Ken Brody.

Run the processing using @once processing.  Processing runs prior to hitting
a record.  Ergo, no problem having multiple users run the process as no one
is on a record.  Of course this method won't work if one needs to use a
screen.


Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting
rkreiss at gccconsulting.net