#73736 - 2003-02-27 03:54 PM
re: Lonkero's UDFs
|
Radimus
Moderator
Registered: 2000-01-06
Posts: 5187
Loc: Tampa, FL
|
Hey lonk, how about inserting some code to ensure your dependencies are met.
if (instr(@producttype,'2000') or instr(@producttype,'NT')) and val(left($iever,1))=>4
...
else
exit 1
endif
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73738 - 2003-02-28 01:26 AM
Re: re: Lonkero's UDFs
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
Dear Lonkero,
it slows down too much
what are you meaning with this. Simple starting up a computer cost more
time, than running a large script.
Our experience is that we can do extremly much things in 1 or 2 seconds
kixtart time.
Things which can slowdown a script are
- SHELL/RUN statements
- USE commands
- too much file operations
etc, etc.
Of course it can be a point that people should keep their system up to
date, but it isn't always possible. Mostly the reason isn't they want
it, but the managers doesn't want it.
Also it can be very expensive to keep all systems up to date. NTDOC can
agree, that with me.
We agree with Radimus, that a little of version checking should
be done.
Reasons:
- sometimes members are mentioning only an UDF without talking about restrictions.
- reading the comments and UDF on itself can suggest it works on too much environments.
- it should prevent at least that wrong information will be returned, or in worse
case script aborts in specific environment.
greetings.
btw: see also on of our reaction on WKIX32.EXE deployment (F14-429) about too slow.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73740 - 2003-02-28 08:55 PM
Re: re: Lonkero's UDFs
|
Radimus
Moderator
Registered: 2000-01-06
Posts: 5187
Loc: Tampa, FL
|
hey lonk... in your research of those new UDFs, have you come across a good refresh desktop function?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Glenn Barnas, NTDOC, Arend_, Jochen, Radimus, Allen, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 657 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
