Re: 2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1996
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 10143
interpreted = N
texte = >Now I could hack in some code that assumes if you don't specify a >database, then it should look for a file called Catalog.txt and assume >it has the old 27 fixed fields in it. But I don't like this because I'd >rather have error-checking so that if you forget to specify a database it >can say Sorry, the SEARCH command requires that you specify a database >rather than just quietly assuming you _meant_ to use an old-style >Catalog.txt file. > >Personally I don't think it's too hard for webmasters to add that first >line of fieldnames, and I'd much rather keep the code clean, fast and >small. And I also like the new method of explicitly specifying the >database you plan to use, rather than having some hidden assumptions that >create tech support nightmares. >How tough would it be to script BBedit to do the necessary updates on the old catalog.txt file and perhaps even on html files containing the webcatalog.acgi statement. If I get to it myself before anyone else does I will offer it up to the group but I do not see that happening any time soon......but....perhaps if you Really cared about us you could do something like that in house???I'd rather see you retain the error checking features then bend the product too much to maintain backword compatability.Matt
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
>Now I could hack in some code that assumes if you don't specify a >database, then it should look for a file called Catalog.txt and assume >it has the old 27 fixed fields in it. But I don't like this because I'd >rather have error-checking so that if you forget to specify a database it >can say Sorry, the SEARCH command requires that you specify a database >rather than just quietly assuming you _meant_ to use an old-style >Catalog.txt file. > >Personally I don't think it's too hard for webmasters to add that first >line of fieldnames, and I'd much rather keep the code clean, fast and >small. And I also like the new method of explicitly specifying the >database you plan to use, rather than having some hidden assumptions that >create tech support nightmares. >How tough would it be to script BBedit to do the necessary updates on the old catalog.txt file and perhaps even on html files containing the webcatalog.acgi statement. If I get to it myself before anyone else does I will offer it up to the group but I do not see that happening any time soon......but....perhaps if you Really cared about us you could do something like that in house???I'd rather see you retain the error checking features then bend the product too much to maintain backword compatability.Matt
matt@papersite.com (Matthew Steele)
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Authentication on NT server (2000)
HELP WITH DATES (1997)
MacAuthorize order data fields WAS:How To question... (1997)
Emailer help....! (1997)
[include file=filename.inc&strip=t] (2002)
Question re: FlushDatabases (1997)
suggestions for a Windows based text editor? (2004)
[WebDNA] directory protection questions (2008)
File not found error message (1998)
[WriteFile] problems (1997)
unable to launch acgi in WebCat (1997)
Netscape v. IE (1997)
Digest Format (2003)
Location of Browser Info.txt file (1997)
Browser Problem?!? Still getting Error message using POST! (1997)
Emailer setup (1997)
[OT] Passing a WebDNA variable through flash (2004)
[WebDNA] Hosting Solution (2013)
WebCatalog for dummies p2.2 (2000)
You are not allowed to change the price (2003)