Problems with FWH 1805 BUILD 1 accessing files DBF

[max]

Is it possible i'm encountering saltuary problems accessing files dbf (using DBFNTX) with a procedure that works fine (since many years) compiled with an older version of FWH?? (Rev. 1506 to be precise)
I purchase upgrade FWH 1805 BUILD 1 last august and two days ago i recompile this procedure with new this new version without changing nothing, and casually from that moment my customer send me several errors using the procedure ("workarea not in use" or "alias does not exist" and similar...)!! And the errors seems come out casually.
Not finding errors apparently in my procedure, yesterday i come back and recompile my procedure (without changing nothing) with the older version of FWH (1506), and this morning my customer say me that has not had any problems so far! So, can it depend on Version 1805 Build 1 of FWH???
Now i have downloaded last version of FWH (1807), but now i'm a bit scared recompiling: the (casual?) errors accessing dbf will come back out again?

Thank you.

[nageswaragunupudi]

This is surprising. What we can assure you is that FWH does in no way interfere with the functionality of any RDD (eg DBFNTX,DBFCDX,etc). That is totally handled by (x)Harbour.

Strangely you are experiencing problems with 18.05 that were not existing with 1506. Without knowing more it is extremely difficult to guess what must be happening, when we have not heard of any such issues from any other user.

To start with, will you please let us know more about:
1) Are you using Harbour or xHarbour?
2) The version of (x)Harbour
3) bcc compiler version
4) Any 3rd party libraries you are linking with your application
5) Any log files generated during the building of application with 1805 or 1807
6) Are you using TDatabase class or TData class in your application?
7) error.log files generated when your client or you encountered the errors (if you still have them)
8 ) Can you identify what modules in your application are generating these errors?

Note: If you have many such log files, we will indicate to you how to send to us.

We thank you for your patience and request you to help to locate the problems.

[hmpaquito]

Hi,

Where errors are occurring ? xBrowse, Dialog, etc...

Perhaps, simply is a bad practicse coding prg supported by old fwh versions.

My 2 eur cents.

[max]

In this moment the only thing sure 100% is that compiling with FWH 1506 + XHARBOUR 1.2.3 (Build 20141106) all is ok.
Compiling the same .prg with FWH 1805 Build 1 + XHARBOUR 1.2.3 (Build 20180818) start the problems. That unfortunately are not easily playable and repeateble.
My customer now is working with the exe compiled with FWH 1506 + XHARBOUR 20141106, and no more problems.

Hmpaquito: surely i'm not a good programmer, and surely i use bad practicse in my source code, but if all is perfect from years with FWH 1506+XHARBOUR 2014110 (and many other previous versions, from 2006 til today), MUST be ok with last versions, don't you believe? If not, so i have to know what is no more supported from newer versions, otherwise… how can i correct???

Thank you nageswaragunupudi for your interest, soon i'll do some tests myself and give you more precise answers to your questions. But it is not so easy to do: now i'm working with old FWH 1506 + XHARBOUR 20141106 that know is surely ok with my source code. And reproducing the problems is not so easy. So in this moment i have to postpone this tests. But i will do it soon, because i need work with newer versions.
The bcc compiler version is the same, so the problems deriving from newer version of FWH or newer version (20180818) of xHarbour.
Reading your post, i think it can depends from xHarbour that manages access to the dbf.
My code for opening and manage dbf and fields is very simple, like this:
select 1
use customer shared
database dbcustomer
dbcustomer:load()


In this case, how do you think if i work with new FWH 1807 manteining XHARBOUR older version 20141106 ? You think Is it a possible good road to take?

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

use customer shared
database dbcustomer
dbcustomer:load()

So the problem could also be database class.

EMG

[nageswaragunupudi]

use customer shared
database dbcustomer
dbcustomer:load()

So the problem could also be database class.

EMG

This is correct.

In this case, with 18.06 and 18.07 you should not have this problem.
Please build with FWH 18.07

[max]

Ok.
So there was a possible problem in FWH 1805 for TDatabase class?
Just to know, because the application installed to my customer is mission-critical and I would like to avoid problems from him as far as possible.
Thank you.

[nageswaragunupudi]

Ok.
So there was a possible problem in FWH 1805 for TDatabase class?
Just to know, because the application installed to my customer is mission-critical and I would like to avoid problems from him as far as possible.
Thank you.

Yes.
Please use 18.06 and 18.07

[TimStone]

Between version 15.xx and 18.xx, there were changes made to tDatabase. They are discussed on this forum in various threads. Included in them were issues of files being closed automatically within the tDatabase class rather than waiting for a command to do so. This means that the first record shows, is acted upon, and then the file is closed so you get the access issue for the second record in your procedure.

Also, you are using DBFNTX. I think most people use DBFCDX so that might explain why there are no reports from other users about issues.

[max]

Included in them were issues of files being closed automatically within the tDatabase class rather than waiting for a command to do so. This means that the first record shows, is acted upon, and then the file is closed so you get the access issue for the second record in your procedure.

Good! It this seems to be exactly the problem encountered with my application compiled with FWH 1805: the auto close of dbf without reason. About DBFCDX more used then DBFNTX: why? Is DBFCDX better then DBFNTX?
I might consider leaving DBFNTX if there are good reasons to do it and if DBFNTX can cause more reliability problems. Thank you.

[nageswaragunupudi]

(x)Harbour's DBFNTX and DBFCDX both are equally reilable and it is not necessary to migrate for reasons of reliability alone.

As far as TDatabase issues are concerned, you are safe with 18.06 onwards.

[James Bott]

There are reasons why CDXs are better than NTXs such as CDXs are smaller, faster, all indexes for a dbf can be placed in the same file, and you can use scopes. If you are interested in any of those features then it is worth upgrading.

Once I tried CDXs, I never used NTXs again.

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

There are reasons why CDXs are better than NTXs such as CDXs are smaller, faster, all indexes for a dbf can be placed in the same file, and you can use scopes.

Scopes can be also used with DBFNTX.

EMG

[James Bott]

Enrico wrote: Scopes can be also used with DBFNTX

I stand corrected. I seem to remember that they didn't. Is that new?

[max]

No James, i use scope with DBFNTX for a long time, it's not new.