Board index » off-topic » Re: BDE - Disk Full

Re: BDE - Disk Full


2005-04-12 07:40:34 AM
off-topic10
Hi Lysander,
"Lysander" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
says...
Quote
no offense meant, but this assumption is dangerous for you and your
customers/employers.
No Offsense taken. It *might* be dangerous if I didn't have contingency
plans. However, I point out that many thousands of Paradox For Windows Users
have no options.
Quote
If you take a look at the system requirements as written on your
Paradox-box, you will not find there something like "Windows Longhorn"
or "Windows 2000 AND SUCCESSORS".
True. But if I install the latest version of delphi - Yep, there's the BDE.
If I buy a new product with features in it then I *expect* those features to
be supported at least for the defined lifetime of the product. If they are
not supported then they must *remove* the features !!!
Interestingly, there are laws in this country (Australia) which protect the
consumer on this very issue.
Leslie.
 
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Leslie Milburn wrote:
Quote
as far as I am concerned they will have to fix it if it goes wrong
other than the fact that you're mainly beating a dead horse..
if the BDE won't install and/or won't run under XP64 or Longhorn, you'll have a
hard time convincing Borland (or any company in a similar situation) that it's
their fault, and that they must spend money to "fix it".. I doubt that any
company, in any country, is *required* to make their product work with future
versions of other products..
I think the best that we could hope for, is that, if necessary, a *very* minor
change could be made.. in which case it *might* be made..
anything beyond that, and there's already a nice pile of dead horses over there
in the corner.. (g)
Diamond Software Group
www.diamondsg.com/main.htm
Paradox Support & Sales - Corel CTech Paradox
---------------------------------------------------
Diamond Sports Gems
www.diamondsg.com/gemsmain.htm
Trading Cards and other Sports Memorabilia
---------------------------------------------------
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

"Steven Green" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Leslie Milburn wrote:

other than the fact that you're mainly beating a dead horse..

Agreed, but its the principal.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Bill Todd wrote:
Quote
There are very few engineers left at Borland who worked on any part of the
BDE so fixing an incompatibility with a future version of Windows would
mean almost starting from scratch. Due to the size and complexity of the
BDE any change that would propagate through a large percentage of the code
whould involve a hurculean effort.
it's sad.. no matter how many times we say this, and no matter how many
different ways we try to explain this, nobody ever seems to get the
message..
"hurculean effort" most likely translates to *millions* of dollars of dev
time, testing, deployment, etc..
Diamond Software Group
www.diamondsg.com/main.htm
Paradox Support & Sales - Corel CTech Paradox
---------------------------------------------------
Diamond Sports Gems
www.diamondsg.com/gemsmain.htm
Trading Cards and other Sports Memorabilia
---------------------------------------------------
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Hi Leslie,
I would really appreciate it if you could provide a reference to the
document where Borland has made this statement. The last word I have
seen from Borland is
community.borland.com/article/0,1410,28688,00.html which makes
no commitment that I can see other than to continue to ship BDE 5.2 for
the foreseeable future to provide Paradox and dBase table support. I
have not seen any public statement by Borland that they will modify the
BDE as necessary to keep it running on future versions of Windows.
<teambhatoff>
My personal guess is that no such decision has been made because there
is no way to forsee the amount of effort involved. I was told several
years ago by a member of the BDE development team that the BDE consists
of almost 500,000 lines of C code and 4,000 lines of assembler. There
are very few engineers left at Borland who worked on any part of the
BDE so fixing an incompatibility with a future version of Windows would
mean almost starting from scratch. Due to the size and complexity of
the BDE any change that would propagate through a large percentage of
the code whould involve a hurculean effort.
As an example look at the additon of support for dialect 3 InterBase
databases. Although Borland added support for dialect 3 when you read
the fine print you will discover that they did not add support for
large exact numerics (64 bit integers) which is one of the key dialect
3 features. My understanding is that the reason for this incomplete
support is that adding support for 64 bit integers would have rippled
through the entire fabric of the BDE and would, therefore, have
required a huge amount of effort. Therefore, it was not done.
If a future version of 32 bit Windows breaks the BDE it is probably
safe to assume that it is more likely that the changes required to make
the BDE compatible will be relatively small and less likely that the
changes will require a huge amount of effort. However, the probablility
that a huge amount of effort would be required is not zero.
I am certainly not saying that Borland will not fix the BDE if a future
version of Win 32 breaks it. I am not saying that Borland will fix it.
I don't think anyone can say with any degree of certainty whether
Borland will fix the problem or not because I don't think anyone inside
Borland has made that decision nor will they make the decision until
the problem occurs and they can gauge the amount of effort required. If
you agree with my reaoning then it follows that there is risk in
blindly assuming that Borland will fix the problem if it occurs simply
because a substantial number of people will be affected.
Please note that I have carefully referred to Win 32 in the preceding
text. My personal opinion is that there is no chance that Borland will
change the BDE to make it run on Win 64 and that there is no chance
that there will ever by a managed code version of the BDE.
It is not my intention to start a debate but rather to help those who
may be affected to take a realistic view of what may happen if a future
version of Windows does break the BDE. Therefore, this will be my last
post to this thread.
</teambhatoff>
--
Bill Todd (TeamB)
TeamB cannot answer questions received via email
Leslie Milburn wrote:
Quote
As Borland have done neither and have documented that the BDE is still
supported for Paradox
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Quote
As an example look at the additon of support for dialect 3 InterBase...
... My understanding is that the reason for this incomplete
support is that adding support for 64 bit integers would have rippled
through the entire fabric of the BDE and would, therefore, have
required a huge amount of effort. Therefore, it was not done.
That was what probably seemed like a simple change to one SQL Links driver.
Unfortunately, it had big ramifications for existing customers that had
nothing to do with dialect 3. At the time we had thousands of IB 5.6 users
deployed to numerous customers. All it took was one user to install Delphi
6 with the default options (BDE 5.2 SQL Links and new IB 6 client) to cause
ALL users that were connected to an IB 5.6 server to get disconnected. We
had this happen internally numerous times and we also had customers that
were affected. For any history bufs details are here:
groups-beta.google.com/group/borland.public.bde/browse_thread/thread/307f309ee405c9ba/4f24c28018a7465f
Along the lines of Bill's comments about the complexities of the BDE, think
of the risk of updating one sql links DLL and what happened when they did
that to that of updating the core BDE DLLs.
David R.
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Leslie Milburn wrote:
Quote
Interestingly, there are laws in this country (Australia) which
protect the consumer on this very issue.
Leslie.
But my Ansett frequent flyers are stuck to the wall
:)
Mick
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Mario,
bet your glad you asked the question, out of about 20 responses I
think only 1 provided any advice. Yet another slanging match about the merits/future of the BDE is not very helpfull to you.
The error you are getting IS definately the multple of 4Gig
error i.e. when your free diskspace approaches (n * 4Gig) the BDE will crash as it is using an incorrect verison of GetFreeDiskSpaceEx.
For the several years we were getting that error (partially fixed by writing a seperate app to make sure the free diskspace was never a multiple of 4 Gig) , however when we added the solution posted in the code central (FixBde4GbBug.pas) we no longer see this error. I would therefore recommend using the patch.
Ian.
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

Hi Bill,
Answers below.....
"Bill Todd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
community.borland.com/article/0,1410,28688,00.html which makes
no commitment that I can see other than to continue to ship BDE 5.2 for
the foreseeable future to provide Paradox and dBase table support.
Ok. This above information was released around the same time a John Kaster
(I think) decided to visit here for about five minutes a couple of years
back to annouce/defend the decision to drop SQL Links. Upon hearing this
news my Boss in a company I used to work for, met with Borland Australia to
discuss in detail the repercussions. That company still has a huge
investment in Paradox - via the BDE directly, using Delphi and also Paradox
For Windows. The outcome of the meeting (I was not present) was essentially
a "guarantee" that until the BDE is dropped entirely, it will continue to be
supported under Windows for Paradox Databases (as the above document also
states). When clarified if that meant future windows - they were told YES,
UNTIL the BDE is removed or an annoucement stating that Paradox Support is
dropped (neither of which has happened) - This was all done in writing.
So, *my* opinion is also that until the BDE is removed and/or an alternative
access method to Paradox Tables is provided, Borland will continue to
support the BDE for Paradox Access. My real wish would be an for alternate
API as I have stated elsewhere.
Quote
years ago by a member of the BDE development team that the BDE consists
of almost 500,000 lines of C code and 4,000 lines of assembler. There
are very few engineers left at Borland who worked on any part of the
BDE
I solely support a program of 350,000+ lines of C code so these number do
not really impress me that much. I agree that adding features might be a
problem although any C programmer worth their salt would not find this task
too difficult. But I am not talking about adding features, it does the job
right now.
Quote
As an example look at the additon of support for dialect 3 InterBase
databases. Although Borland added support for dialect 3 when you read
the fine print you will discover that they did not add support for
large exact numerics (64 bit integers) which is one of the key dialect
3 features. My understanding is that the reason for this incomplete
support is that adding support for 64 bit integers would have rippled
through the entire fabric of the BDE and would, therefore, have
required a huge amount of effort. Therefore, it was not done.
The more realistic approach would have been to write a good ODBC driver and
not bother with the native one at all. However, in the case of Interbase I
think it has its own API (firebird does) and thats what I would use - the
direct API. However, in the case of Paradox there isn't one - they killed
the Paradox Engine when they wrote ODAPI (aka IDAPI, aka BDE).
Quote
you agree with my reaoning then it follows that there is risk in
blindly assuming that Borland will fix the problem if it occurs simply
because a substantial number of people will be affected.
Of course and that why I have alternatives. But I stress again the Paradox
for Windows Users DO NOT - That is a real problem in the real world.
IMO, Borland are acting irresponsibly by continuing to ship the BDE in the
latest products. If it is a done deal then it should be removed - those
using the BDE will get the message and will stay with their current version
of Dephi (or whatever) until they are forced to upgrade - basically its one
feature versus another.
Quote
Please note that I have carefully referred to Win 32 in the preceding
text. My personal opinion is that there is no chance that Borland will
change the BDE to make it run on Win 64 and that there is no chance
that there will ever by a managed code version of the BDE.
Agreed.
Quote
It is not my intention to start a debate but rather to help those who
may be affected to take a realistic view of what may happen if a future
version of Windows does break the BDE.
Agreed. However, Borland must *also* take a reality pill and realise that
thousands of Paradox for Windows Users will be up the creek and thats where
I have an issue.
Quote
Therefore, this will be my last post to this thread.
I didn't really expect you to be bothered in the first place and have wasted
enough time myself :-)
Leslie.
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

"Steven Green" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Leslie Milburn wrote:

so far, we've only got that one reported failed installation attempt on
XP64..
sure would nice to get a few more reports..

Steven,
From memory that was resolved. I have one installation and it works fine -
my *only*problem at the moment is a speed issue with Win2003SBS - but I'm
almost positive its not the BDE.
Leslie.
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

" however when we added the solution posted in the code central
(FixBde4GbBug.pas) we no longer see this error. I would therefore recommend
using the patch."
Exactly, and the first reply, from me, suggested looking for this patch.
The discussion about the way the BDE is going which followed was actually
one of the more good natured and constructive of the numerous iterations of
the debate.
My personal view is that BDE developers are taking a chance that it will
fail in an unplanned way with no warning, but, as you can see opinion
varies.
:-)
Andrew
Andrew
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

I don't believe it would require a Herculean effort to fix this particular
bug.
It is simply the result of the wrong API being called.
A praradox API would rock. If I could access paradox tables through ADO
without using ODBC or BDE , I would never look back.
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

The problem with that is that the Paradox DBMS is an integral part of
the BDE.
--
Bill Todd (TeamB)
TeamB cannot answer questions received via email
D Whaley wrote:
Quote
without using ODBC or BDE
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

I on the other hand installed this fix, and on win98 boxes it caused an
Access Violation.
I do not recommend it.
We are forced to use the BDE because we read from a third party system which
uses paradox.
Our system however uses Firebird, for writing data.
If BDE was taken out of our pallette.
We would be forced to revert to older versions of Delphi.
It is out of our hands, we have to use the BDE.
This is the sad reality.
Regards,
Robert.
"Will" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Ian wrote:
>Mario,
>bet your glad you asked the question, out of about 20 responses I
>think only 1 provided any advice. Yet another slanging match about the
merits/future of the BDE is not very helpfull to you.
>The error you are getting IS definately the multple of 4Gig
>error i.e. when your free diskspace approaches (n * 4Gig) the BDE will
crash as it is using an incorrect verison of GetFreeDiskSpaceEx.
>For the several years we were getting that error (partially fixed by
writing a seperate app to make sure the free diskspace was never a multiple
of 4 Gig) , however when we added the solution posted in the code central
(FixBde4GbBug.pas) we no longer see this error. I would therefore recommend
using the patch.
Quote
>
>Ian.

I too have installed the Fix4GBBDEBug file in my apps that use the BDE,
and all problems with that have disappeared.

--
Will
 

Re:Re: BDE - Disk Full

BDE works under Linux/WINE