I'm looking for good report library for Visual FoxPro, but it seems that there is lot "old" solutions with bad documentation. Does anyone have experience with some VFP report library?
"old" solutions? Isn't it natural that a language whose last version was released on 2007 and even the latest hotfix release was in 2009 have solutions as "old"? What is old? 1,2, 10, or 20 years? Probably the VFP9's own reporting system, and the documentation written by Cathy Pountney is considered good by many including me.
There are other reporting solutions some of which are free and some of which are not. For example you might check out Report Sculptor (free) from my friend Djordjevic Srdjan. Or you might check out another from one of my other friend Rich Simpson Mind's Eye reporting engine (paid). I have been using Mind's eye for years and I found its documentation well. Report Sculptor too is documented enough IMHO.
Old/new, good/bad are relative terms and be different from person to person. With your measures, either you didn't see the default reporting tool and Cathy's doucmentation, and those two engines yet or your 'good' expectation is much above mine.
In our company we are using Eqeus report library. We had really great experience with them. They have good documentation and their customer support always helped us. I think that free solutions cannot beat commercial use for this purpose.
I can recommend www.eqeus.com for generating foxpro reports. They have also cloud report viewer and management.
Related
We've recently started to support a PowerBuilder 10.5 application and the question has come whether or not we should think about alternatives or keep the app running in PB 10.5. It is a classic PB app; an administrative software, build upon an Oracle DB.
Right now, the app works great, but there are two reasons why we reconsider:
The sole developer of this app is about to retire. He's the only one
who has all the PB-knowledge to support this app.
We might want to improve the offered services of the app. So integrations with other tools are right around the corner.
I'm not very familiar with PB, but I've read it (only the newest versions) is now supported by Appeon. The latest version is now 2017 R3, with a 2019 version coming up.
I'm wondering what the pro's & con's are of trying to update the current 10.5 version to the latest version. Is it worth it to update? Or what are the pro's & con's of sticking to the 10.5 version?
Or should we consider moving to a newer technology, since so few Powerbuilders are to be found nowadays? And if so, what technology would you advise?
Rather than just differences between the older and newer PB-versions, I'm looking for motivations to upgrade/migrate/do nothing at all.
Thanks.
So, there's no clear cut answer, but we can throw around some ideas on the non-technical bullet points (as requested).
Staying on 10.5: There's a lot to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If it works and you're happy with what it does, don't move it.
However, since you've said that you're planning on moving it forward, you might want to consider that 10.5 doesn't support current operating systems (within a year, Windows systems currently supported by MS will be only Win8 and Win10), which were nothing but figments of imagination when 10.5 was out. Your 10.5 app may work on Win10 now, but that's solely because of MS's work on backward compatibility for apps, and that you haven't leveraged an area in PB that had a problem in a then-future version of Windows. If you need to add functionality, being on a version that at least suggests that it works on your operating system could be helpful.
Parallel argument for databases, the exception being that if your app uses SQL Anywhere, the database that used to come for free in several PB packages. It is now something you'd have to purchase separately.
One thing to remember about trying to move forward with an old version of anything is support. If you get stuck, the vendor will basically not talk to you, and the peer community has been shrinking, so you've got less chance of getting into a dialog with fellow developers.
Upgrading: Upgrading is usually a minor effort. The most frequent reasons I've seen exceptions to this: deprecated functionality, and coding that depends on behaviours that didn't stay consistent between versions (some behaviours are promised to stay consistent, but not all). Run a migration test with a trail version with your PB expert to get that question off the table.
One thing to keep in mind when upgrading is that the licensing model has changed. PB used to have a perpetual model (buy once, use forever), but it's now a subscription model. Whether this is an improvement for you or not is up to you to figure out.
Whether it is "worth it" to upgrade, in my mind it usually boils down to
OS support
DB support
vendor support
peer support
deprecated features, and whether I use them
new features, and whether I would use them (and you asked us not to discuss these last two items, which need to be weighed very individually anyway, and are well documented on Appeon's site)
"Migrating": I've put "migrating" in quotes, because I don't believe there's a technology that lets you "migrate" in the sense of a code translation. (I'll let you read one of my old tirades about wanting to "migrate" off PB.) What I'll talk about here is rewriting in a new technology. Both pulling business rules out of an old PB system and redesigning/rewriting in another technology is a big effort.
The biggest argument in favour these days is getting and keeping PowerBuilder talent. Getting people with PB under their belt is hard, and judging legitimate talent is challenging, even with someone with PB on your side of the interview table. (Leverage your retiring guy if you want to move forward with PB.) Training someone with PB is no small task either. Someone once asked me, not an educator, if I could come up with a course and train his team in a week. I laughed. After a two week course designed and given by professional educators from the then-vendor Powersoft, I came home and wrote incredibly embarrassing code. I also needed lots of time practicing, and getting feedback from my peers. If you can get someone or train someone, if they are only doing PB work a couple of weeks per year, those PB "muscles" will atrophy. No matter the technical arguments of PB vs something else, if you can't get PB talent to maintain it, PB is a dead end.
I'm afraid I'm not one to suggest an alternative technology. It used to be that, in terms of of rich client apps, you couldn't go wrong with choosing Microsoft, but since then, MS has sent the development community on some wild goose chases, that have ended in deprecated technologies. I wouldn't want to be the guy looking into the future to guess.
Good luck.
I would recommend migrating.
You will find several companies that offer migration to both java and .net which are the leading platforms.
In terms of UI for me currently the only option is web. Using other technologies does not make a lot of sense.
If your company uses a lot of MS stack, like MS OS, SQL server. Exchange, Sharepoint etc I will recommend migrating to C# otherwise migrating to Java makes more sense
Terry's answer is quite good but the point about migration was not addressed with respect to the new features in PowerBuilder 2019.
One major feature of PowerBuilder 2019 is a C# DataStore (compatible with .NET Core) and DataWindow object migration utility. The C# DataStore has the same APIs and transaction mechanism as the PowerScript DataStore. It is documented in detail on the Appeon Website: https://www.appeon.com/support/documents/appeon_online_help/powerbuilder/api_reference/PowerBuilder.Data/DataStore/IDataStore/IDataStore.html
Should you decide C# is the way to go, this feature of PowerBuilder 2019 makes the migration effort a "port" of the PowerScript non-visual code rather than a rewrite (for the reasons mentioned above).
Here is example PowerScript code:
public function datastore of_retrieve (date ad_start, date ad_end, decimal adec_amt);
Datastore lds
lds = Create Datastore
lds.dataobject = "d_order_customer"
lds.SetTransObject(SQLCA)
lds.Retrieve(ad_start, ad_end, adec_amt)
Return lds
end function
Here is the same example in C# using the C# DataStore:
public IDataStore GetOrderCustomerInfo(DateTime startDate, DateTime endDate, decimal amount)
{
IDataStore dataStore = new DataStore("d_order_customer", _context);
dataStore.Retrieve(startDate, endDate, amount);
return dataStore;
}
I'm curious to know some more details about the various SQL standard's, i.e. SQL-92, SQL:99, SQL:2003, SQL:2008 etc. There is a short and useful overview on Wikipedia, with links to very expensive documents. Why are those documents not open to public? Can I find some open and free information?
Please, don't post links you found from Google. I'm interested in somewhat authoritative documentation only.
Quoting from one of my web sites:
We all love open source software. Wouldn’t it be great if
international standard documents such as the SQL standard would be
open too?
As a matter of fact: they are!
However, they are not free—just public. Very much like open source
software is not necessarily free. Too often, we neglect these
differences. Just because we have to pay for the standard doesn't mean
it is secret.
A download of the most relevant part of the SQL standard—part 2—is
available for USD 60 at ANSI. A CD with all parts on it can be bought
from ISO for CHF 352. Not free, but affordable.
You mentioned in some comments that you are mostly interested in part 2, so spending USD 60 might be your best option.
If you just need to know about the syntax up to 2003, there are two great free resources:
BNF grammar of SQL-92, SQL:1999 and SQL:2003: http://www.savage.net.au/SQL/
Online validator for SQL:1999: https://developer.mimer.com/services/sql-validator-99/
Finally, the complete text of “SQL-99 Complete, Really” is available at the MariaDB knowledge base. However, this book was written in 1999 when no database actually supported the described features. Keep that in mind when using this resource.
Other answers also mentioned "free" copies of the standards available on the web. Yes there are—those are mostly draft versions. I can't tell which of them are legal, so I rather not link them.
Finally a little self ad: I've just launched http://modern-sql.com/ to explain the standard in an easily accessible way to developers. Note that the actual standards text is written like laws are written :) Depending on your background, that might anyway not what you want.
The Postgresql Developer FAQ maintains links to each of them:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Where_can_I_get_a_copy_of_the_SQL_standards.3F
There are some hyperlinked versions of 92, 99 and 2003 here
However, I've never been able to use them effectively (read: I gave up).
This 92 text is useful (and is quoted here on SO several times)
ISO/IEC 9075-1:2011 -- google that.
Actually, digging around I found
http://www.incits.org/standards-information/
and it has freely availble section that clicks to something that redirects to here:
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html
And finally the standards.
You have to accept a license agreement to download a pdf.
However, from what I have read in my pursuit - the RDMS well the 'RD' part is going the way of the dinosaur.. If you are building something new (therefore want the new standards) you may want to reconsider all options.
You don't have to pay for all of the standards. SQL-92 is freely available, for instance.
Do you think Microsoft's RAP program worth the money you pay ?
Any suggestions ?
Thanks
I would have to say that it depends on a number of factors. First how knowledgeable are you at configuring and maintaining the specific versions of SQL Server that they would be looking at? Then why are you doing the SQL RAP? Is it to really get a good risk assessment, to demonstrate to management that things are being done correctly, or to learn where you are coming up short in an effort to correct things and find areas to learn more about the product, or is it none of the above?
I had a SQL RAP done at the end of last year, and I can tell you from personal experience, you will only get as much from it as you are open to learning. If you have a cluster, be prepared to have your eyes opened to areas you never thought to look at. The SQL RAP visit has four different phases, or at least mine did. First they collect the data from your SQL Servers using pssdiag and a bunch of other neat tools that they leave copies of most with you. Then they go into analysis, where they take the data and perform a very thorough analysis of it and generate reports and recommendations. Then they sit down with you and management if you so chose and go over everything, what was good, what was iffy, and what was bad. Then the last part they sit down with you as a DBA and teach you how to use the tools they used and that they can leave copies of with you. They go over the PAL Tool, SQL Nexus, and some others and make sure that you know how to use these tools to do self analysis. Best of all, they leave you these really detailed reports that you can use as a self check for setting up new environments in the future.
Is it worth it? You probably can't tell that until you are done with it. For me, I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about running a "Best Practice" implementation of SQL Server, and who'd like some one on one learning time with a Senior Microsoft Field Engineer.
Oh boy, is that all they does with this much hyped RAP.
Pssdiag is already done.
We did the PAL and Nexus and they too did it before.
They took around 20 Gigs of size trace files to analyse.
Now, wanted to do RAP. Holy cRAP, if this is the same thing to do again, what that's for.
I expect much more than this level of analysis without which I think this is useless and waste of money.
I've been a part of 2 RAPs for SharePoint (finished my second 2 weeks ago). I am unsure as to how much it costs (the company I work for gets 3 RAPs a year with MS) but it is most definitely worth it.
Starting 2010, the PFE will leave the RAP tool installed on the data collection machine. This means that for up to a year, you can rerun the full RAP as many times as you want and analyze the results.
The RAP tool (for SharePoint) runs a bunch of tests that are categorized as below:
SQL Configuration (24)
Server Health (4)
Server Configuration (7)
MOSS Configuration (2)
Each test produces a list of issues with detailed recommendations on how to resolve them.
Additionally, a competent PFE (and they are) will help troubleshoot any outstanding issues you have in your environment and give you the opportunity to listen and learn.
I would recommend the MS RAP to all SharePoint (and SQL) Admins.
If you have never had one, then I think you will have benefit from going through it at least one time. I warn you that it can be quite humbling.
There are a couple of questions on Stackoverflow asking whether x (Ruby / Drupal) technology is 'enterprise ready'.
I would like to ask how is 'enterprise ready' defined.
Has anyone created their own checklist?
Does anyone have a benchmark that they test against?
"Enterprise Ready" for the most part means can we run it reliably and effectively within a large organisation.
There are several factors involved:
Is it reliable?
Can our current staff support it, or do we need specialists?
Can it fit in with our established security model?
Can deployments be done with our automated tools?
How easy is it to administer? Can the business users do it or do we need a specialist?
If it uses a database, is it our standard DB, or do we need to train up more specialists?
Depending on how important the system is to the business the following question might also apply:
Can it be made highly available?
Can it be load balanced?
Is it secure enough?
Open Source projects often do not pay enough attention to the difficulties of deploying and running software within a large organisation. e.g. Most OS projects default to MySql as the database, which is a good and sensible choice for most small projects, however, if your Enterprise has an ORACLE site license and a team of highly skilled ORACLE DBAs in place the MySql option looks distinctly unattractive.
To be short:
"Enterprise ready" means: If it crashes, the enterprises using it will possibly sue you.
Most of the time the "test", if it may really be called as such, is that some enterprise (=large business), has deployed a successful and stable product using it. So its more like saying its proven its worth on the battlefield, or something like that. In other words the framework has been used successfully, or not in the real world, you can't just follow some checklist and load tests and say its enterprise ready.
Like Robert Gould says in his answer, it's "Enterprise-ready" when it's been proven by some other huge project. I'd put it this way: if somebody out there has made millions of dollars with it and gotten written up by venture capitalist magazines as the year's (some year, not necessarily this one) hottest new thing, then it's Enterprise-ready. :)
Another way to look at the question is that a tech is Enterprise-ready when a non-tech boss or business owner won't worry about whether or not they've chosen a good platform to run their business on. In this sense Enterprise-ready is a measure of brand recognition rather than technological maturity.
Having built a couple "Enterprise" applications...
Enterprise outside of development means, that if it breaks, someone can fix it. I've worked with employers/contractors that stick with quite possibly the worst managing hosting providers, data vendors, or such because they will fix problems when they crop up, even if they crop up a lot it, and have someone to call when they break.
So to restate it another way, Enterprise software is Enterprisey because it has support options available. A simple example: jQuery isn't enterprisey while ExtJS is, because ExtJS has a corporate support structure to it. (Yes I know these two frameworks is like comparing a toolset to a factory manufactured home kit ).
As my day job is all about enterprise architecture, I believe that the word enterprise isn't nowadays about size nor scale but refers more to how a software product is sold.
For example, Ruby on Rails isn't enterprise because there is no vendor that will come into your shop and do Powerpoint presentations repeatedly for the developer community. Ruby on Rails doesn't have a sales executive that takes me out to the golf course or my favorite restaurant for lunch. Ruby on Rails also isn't deeply covered by industry analyst firms such as Gartner.
Ruby on Rails will never be considered "enterprise" until these things occur...
From my experience, "Enterprise ready" label is an indicator of the fear of managers to adopt an open-source technology, possibly balanced with a desire not to stay follower in that technology.
This may objectively argued with considerations such as support from a third party company or integration in existing development tools.
I suppose an application could be considered "enterprise ready" when it is stable enough that a large company would use it. It would also imply some level of support, so when it does inevitable break.
Wether or not something is "enterprise ready" is entirely subjective, and undefined, and rather "buzz word'y".. Basically, you can't have a test_isEnterpriseReady() - just make your application as reliable and efficient as it can be..
I know just the question is a bit of heresey, but I'm curious...
Sure, there are the express editions. But when Microsoft is effectively competing for 'hearts and minds' in an OSS world, it seems more than a bit counterproductive to charge devs who wholeheartedly support .NET high subscription fees for Microsoft software. It's hard to imagine that, in the context of Microsoft's overall sales, dev licenses represent such a significant revenue stream as to justify the downsides.
So my question is: do you know of any instances where MSDN subscription rates have deterred a team from adopting .NET for a project - where cost played a role in a decision to go OSS instead?
I think MS has made huge inroads to making .Net cheaper to access and work with. With competent Express versions of Visual Studio and Sql Server, the only thing you need to pay for is Windows itself (both in your dev environment and server/production environment).
The only thing holding .Net back now is it may not be the right tool for every job regardless of cost.
It does to me. It makes me ask maybe I should try and become a Microsoft MVP because they get all the software for free.
You can't buy Expression Blend and Design for anything but the highest level on the License and that just ticks me off.
I don't think so, especially with the empower program for small ISVs -- $375 gets you 5 MSDN licenses and other goodies. After that there are Microsoft Action Packs as well as the entire partner program.
I've always gotten legal, free copies of Visual Studio. You can either download the Express versions which will handle most people's needs or go to the Launch events where they literally give out copies to everyone who shows up.
.NET Framework is a free download, so really the only thing left is a box running Windows.. and I'd be willing to bet that you've got one of those kicking around somewhere.
There's no reason to purchase an MSDN subscription.
It's not a barrier to entry, but it certainly represents a glass ceiling. You get a lot of things with the Express editions, but not EVERYTHING. There's a lot of little perks that come with the Pro versions - addins for instance +cough+ Resharper +cough+. I'd say you need Visual Studio 20xx Pro at a minimum to do any mid-range to Enterprise level development.
The cost of MS developer tools was the sole reason behind my Year of Linux. It's tough seeing all the free development tools for Linux, OS X and Java. If my job didn't depend on keeping up to date with .NET, I'd leave it for dead in a heartbeat.
In my view MSDN subscriptions are not a huge deterrant, as not only are there express editions, there are also trial versions of most products, and I think a basic MSDN subscription is not that expensive.
However licencing costs and licencing complexity of certain developer tools as well as certain products can be a huge obstacle which unfortunately is often not thought about at the beginning of projects.
I am aware of a number of projects which have chosen alternative technologies due to licencing costs and licencing complexity.
I'm currently on the Empower program but I'll be paying the full fare when it runs out
for the same reason I pay A$800/year for an AutoCAD subscription - it easily saves me more time & hassle than it costs in the long run by having everything I need at my fingertips.
I think I'm getting value for money when I consider both the licenses as well as the community - most of which I suppose is free anyway.
I consider it a legitimate cost of running my business and it's tax-deductible anyway.
I am trying to restart my career, my life, etc and my previous MSDN Universal sub expired in 2005. At the time it expired, I stopped working for a while. That coincided with Microsoft changing the cost and structure of that subscription program. To acquire a similar subscription today is out of the question. I do not have the funds. I am currently developing with old technology (VB6 and ASP) and will do so until I have the funds to purchase the MSDN sub that I want. I have downloaded the "express" versions of VS 2008 and SQL 2008 but, lets be frank, any serious developer is going to want to utilize the features that arent available in "express". In exploring this issue here on StackOverflow, I have seen others talk about the Empower program. It looks promising and I shall investigate it.
But, yes, the barrier to entry is the cost. Hopefully Empower lowers that, for a while. I agree with the requirement that after it expires I will need to pay full fare. I think thats only fair.