|
When they create a new type (via a dialog) check for existing, then suggest a "code" based on the entered content after checking for an existing code.
This is the drawback of using a "code" and also storing different types of data in the same table - classic mistake. I know the argument that they are all lookups and they are all simple UNTIL THEY ARE NOT! You now have to faff about working around the problem instead of having an EmployeeType table with an ID as the primary key.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
But the problem is that my code can never know what the code is.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
As Mycroft said, stuffing every lookup into a single "lookups" table is a bad idea. It makes life much harder when you want to evolve a single type of lookup.
Start by moving the employee types to its own table. The next step will depend on your precise requirements:
- If you only ever want to report on a specific group of employee types, then replace the
AppCode with a lookup to an "employee type group" table. When the user adds a new employee type, let them select the appropriate group, so that those types can be included in the relevant reports. - If you need more flexible grouping for your reports, add a many-to-many relationship between the employee type and the employee type groups. You can optionally let the user add the new types to one or more groups; if they don't, then those types won't be included in the reports.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You have an application enum and now the requirement is to allow customers to manage the enum as well.
So first decision is one of these
1. Open it up entirely.
2. Allow them their own additional enums. Only the additions can be modified.
If the there is only one customer per table (how ever you designed that) then the caption can be under user control completely for all enums with the following rules
1. Must not be empty.
2. Must not be a duplicate of another.
Then the decision is how to store them. Probably easiest is going to be to add another column which flags it as a user value.
Then the other changes
1. Provide a UI to manage them. I would just show all of them. This is required to manage the caption anyways (above.) But also allows them to see groupings. The flag controls whether they can delete them. Naturally you will need a length limit.
2. Figure out how to allow the usage.
The second is tricky if you store them in another table. Such as a custom report. If so then you must either force them to remove the usage first before deleting or you must do it yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
... "and remove". Total disaster. Breaks referential integrity. The only way to "remove" "codes" is to "expire" them with a start and end date.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to be creating a payment processing application using WPF for a client of mine. The app will prompt the user to select two files from a customer, crunch some numbers, and produce some output files. The input and output files will all be stored in SharePoint.
Here's the problem:
My client doesn't have a network. They store all their data in ShaarePoint, so there's no way for me to use a database.
The app has customer defintions, such as types of files, file layout info, processing options, etc. I can serialize all of this into an XML file, but problem is where to put the file? I could store it in SharePoint also, but there are multiple users. So if a user runs the app, starts making a change to a customer's configuration, then another user runs the app, makes a change, and saves BEFORE the first user is done, there will be lost data.
I'm open to suggestion
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
modified 7-Sep-23 11:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't let "multiple users" change "configuration files". It's usually password protected and should be administered by a "responsible" person with the understanding "bad things will happen" if you fix it and it isn't broken.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
When I say config file here, I mean a serialized copy of the app's data. Since there's no database, then I need to store the app's data somehow, and a serialized file seems like the way to go.
But all users need access to that file, as it has to load on startup. And, each user could alter that data and save it.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Sharepoint is one big database. All those "lists" ... there all SQL tables. (Or views)
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure how that helps.
When I say config file here, I mean a serialized copy of the app's data. Since there's no database, then I need to store the app's data somehow, and a serialized file seems like the way to go. But all users need access to that file, as it has to load on startup. And, each user could alter that data and save it.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: each user could alter that data and save it.
Fine, but that does not prevent you from storing it wherever you wish. The biggest drawback as I see it is allowing users direct access to modify a configuration file. Or do you mean that each user has a personal copy of the data?
|
|
|
|
|
No, there will be one serialized fiel that is read in on startup. But each user running it gets the data read in and could potentially change it. So how do I manage multiple people using that same XAML file?
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: So how do I manage multiple people using that same XAML file?
You don't; what you are offering is a recipe for disaster. Your application should read the file and then use a dialog/form to get any required changes from the user. As an experienced developer I am surprised you are considering such an option.
|
|
|
|
|
There IS going to be a dialog for Customers and their options. I didn't mean they will use an editor to change settings. But that doesn't solve the issue of more than one person modifying it at the same time.
Since this is just a serialized file (XML) that contains the app's info (List of customers and their processing options), and I likely can only store that file in SharePoint, then I'm stuck with how to keep users from overwriting each other's changes.
Scenerio: User A opens the app, which reads the app's data from SharePoint as a serialized collection. The user decides to modify a customer's settings and clicks save, which writes it back to SharePoint. User B then changes the same. User A's customer settings are now out of sync with user B.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: The user decides to modify a customer's settings and clicks save, which writes it back to SharePoint. User B then changes the same. User A's customer settings are now out of sync with user B.
As described that is a invalid business scenario.
Businesses do not have two people working on changing a customer at the same time. A sales person might update an address and an order entry person might add an order but those are different data operations even if for the same customer. But there will never be two people attempting to change the customer address at the same time.
And if you are doing actual order entry then good luck because you are going to need to implement a full database yourself before your application can even work. Hopefully you are getting paid by the hour.
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say is that your design is wrong, and needs a rethink. If user A changes the file and rewrites it, then whatever user B reads in may be invalid. The only way I could see this as a possibility is if the update file is rewritten to each user's local disk. But again that will present its own problems.
|
|
|
|
|
You're going against the customers' architectural strategy. What you have "stuffed" into XML is the equivalent of a Sharepoint "list" or 2, that can be secured and shared twenty ways to Sunday, and accessed from WPF (if need be) via CSOM (SP client side object model)
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
XML is NOT a database and you're trying to treat it like one. This will go badly for you. Period.
There is no multi-user solution for an XML file, or any file for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: My client doesn't have a network.
As stated that is nonsensical with what you said in the rest of your post such as "then another user runs the app, makes a change, and saves BEFORE the first user is done". That second cannot happen unless there is a network.
Also Sharepoint is a teamwork collaboration tool. You can't use it without a network.
Perhaps you meant a shared file system.
But other than that the configuration file is either per user or there is only one for the entire company.
If per user then you store it on each computer. There is no problem.
If one per company then then since you know Sharepoint exists then use it. It has a REST API, and I would be really surprised if there was not a way to store a file. Your app can provide the management including a place for the current user to type in their Sharepoint credentials (or use some other method to authenticate.)
As for the overwrite problem...
There is something wrong with your design if you expect users to be constantly updating the configuration file all of the time. It should be something that is rarely updated and when it is updated one specific person will be tasked with doing that. It will likely be the case that only one person even knows how to do it. So it is a non-issue.
Otherwise it isn't a configuration file. It is in fact a persisted data store. And your design should have accounted for that in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
When I say config file here, I mean a serialized copy of the app's data. Since there's no database, then I need to store the app's data somehow, and a serialized file seems like the way to go.
But all users need access to that file, as it has to load on startup. And, each user could alter that data and save it.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
That description does not sound like a configuration file. Everything suggests you want a database but have decided you are not going to use one.
Note that all of this requires a shared data location otherwise it is pointless to even discuss this.
If you have customer data then you need to store it in one location.
If you have user data then you store it in an different location.
If there is shared data then you will need to hack a solution that is in fact a database.
Database servers handle the concurrency issue by being in process and by using locks either at the table level or the row level.
You can implement something like that by using data. The data is a marker that each app must look for before it attempts to write. If it is there then the user must refresh before they can update. Problem with that is if the user computer exits or the network goes down the lock file is still there so you will need to provide a way to force it. The granularity and layout is something you would need to design and implement.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not make the application acquire an exclusive lock on the file whenever it's being edited?
That will definitely prevent corrupted changes.
EDIT: On second thought, even this wouldn't work because a person might still write an older version of the file when committing changes.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: On second thought, even this wouldn't work because a person might still write an older version of the file when committing changes.
So, either lock the file, read what you need to make a decision, and write it back, in one go.
Or, if you require some time to ponder the changes: Read lock, take note of the last modification time, read, release. Do all your pondering, preparing your changes. When changes are ready to be written: Exclusive lock, check time of last modification. If later than the one you saw the first time, read the new data, release and repeat from the pondering step. If write timestamp is unchanged, write your new data and release.
This is a file system version of database 'optimistic locking'. With database transactions, you should always be prepared for a rollback if some other transaction modifies data you have based your calculations on. I am not saying that all database applications are prepared for rollback, only that they should be  . Databases with optimistic locking favors short transactions: The shorter the time span from data are read to the commit, the less risk for someone else making modifications inbetween. Your DIY optimistic file system locking is similar: Do all the preparations that you can do without reading the file, leaving the minimum work between reading and writing, to reduce the risk of a rollback. But you must be prepared for it, forcing you to read the updated data before attempting a redo transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
Scenario:
We have (as of today, will be more) 200 devices sending telemetry into an SQL server
with a frequency of 5 rows each pr. second.
Each row contains 6 decimal values to be processed into another dataset/table
containing min/max/avg of these values in 1 minute intervals.
I have never worked with DataLakes and similar tech, so I wonder:
Should i read up on storing the raw telemetry in a datalake, and set up post processing there,
or Just go for my existing SQL server and create a c# job post processing the data in the background myself?
TIA...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
