Using fixed record for processing

[Jose Lerebours]

GCC Consulting wrote:
> 
>> -----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.
> 

You see, I accept that and take it as a know how to add to my toolbox. 
I also accept it as evidence that my statement does not necessary hold 
water, if this method is employed.