On march 31/08 I sent an email in to tech support with the second major
anomaly I found in version 1.9 I was told that in order to have the
situation looked at I would have to pay for support at the price of $1000.00
U.S. The problem is that I purchased version 1.9 with the expectation that
it would work or that it would be fixed if it did not. So far I have not
been able to convert my existing code from 1.7 to 1.9 because 1.9 will not
work correctly. I have completed some upgrades to existing programs by
converting them back to 1.7. In my estimation the purchase of 1.9 was a
waste of the purchase price. I am very disappointed with the idea that I
should have to pay to have your product fixed when it is sold with the
expectation that it will work as advertised when there is obviously a
problem with the product. The same code works fine when compiled with
version 1.7

Secondly I posted a question on the bug report forum asking if any one else
had a similar problem and later noticed that it had been removed from the
web site.

Hello Doug,

so, what do you want to tell us?

Just my thoughts on your problem:

Why should Alaska delete your posts from the newsgroup? As far I can 
remember they did it only once in the past. Contrarywise Alaska is happy 
if bugs or problems are postet in the newsgroup, than they know where 
they have to fix something.

On the other hand: I also had some problems with Xbase++ in the past. 
And if the problem has been because of an error or incompleteness within 
Xbase++ they never charged me. But they want us to follow some rules: If 
we detect a problem they want us to send them a self-explanatory code 
example that shows that error. And if possible they will fix it and send 
you that fix. My one experience. And yours, if I understand your post 
from 23.03.2008 correct.

On the last point I can give no help. I never worked with 1.7. I started 
with 1.8. So I do not know what problem may occure changing from 1.7 to 
1.9. But maybe you can post that problem once more?

Jan

Doug Schwerin schrieb:
> On march 31/08 I sent an email in to tech support with the second major
> anomaly I found in version 1.9 I was told that in order to have the
> situation looked at I would have to pay for support at the price of $1000.00
> U.S. The problem is that I purchased version 1.9 with the expectation that
> it would work or that it would be fixed if it did not. So far I have not
> been able to convert my existing code from 1.7 to 1.9 because 1.9 will not
> work correctly. I have completed some upgrades to existing programs by
> converting them back to 1.7. In my estimation the purchase of 1.9 was a
> waste of the purchase price. I am very disappointed with the idea that I
> should have to pay to have your product fixed when it is sold with the
> expectation that it will work as advertised when there is obviously a
> problem with the product. The same code works fine when compiled with
> version 1.7
> 
> Secondly I posted a question on the bug report forum asking if any one else
> had a similar problem and later noticed that it had been removed from the
> web site.
> 
>

> 
> Secondly I posted a question on the bug report forum asking if any one else
> had a similar problem and later noticed that it had been removed from the
> web site.

Most likely you are refeing to "not switching between threads". Well, this
thread is still there. Most likely your news reader has deleted it from its
local storage (afaik, the default setting is 30 days).

I suggest to first configure Outlook Express correctly, then posts will not
"vanish"... or better use a working news reader like 40tude Dialog
instead of this broken "news reader simulation" from Microsoft.

Regarding your problem, debugging multi-threaded applications is very hard,
so without some sample code that shows the problem, I doubt that anybody
here will be able to help you. 

I have done quite a bit of coding with multi threading, so I think I can
say that most of the time anomalies are caused by the code logic, not the
Xbase++ kernel.

regards
Thomas

This is most likely a bug in your program logic. I have a huge 300,000
line program the runs fine (multiple thread. 1.7 had a lot more bugs the
1.9. It is quite possible that you have code that depends on one of the
bugs or incorrect behavior. I remember one in the class code where
method calls in the super class did not use call the derived class
method but the Supers and I wrote code dependent on the old incorrect
behavior.

Jim

Doug Schwerin wrote:
> On march 31/08 I sent an email in to tech support with the second major
> anomaly I found in version 1.9 I was told that in order to have the
> situation looked at I would have to pay for support at the price of $1000.00
> U.S. The problem is that I purchased version 1.9 with the expectation that
> it would work or that it would be fixed if it did not. So far I have not
> been able to convert my existing code from 1.7 to 1.9 because 1.9 will not
> work correctly. I have completed some upgrades to existing programs by
> converting them back to 1.7. In my estimation the purchase of 1.9 was a
> waste of the purchase price. I am very disappointed with the idea that I
> should have to pay to have your product fixed when it is sold with the
> expectation that it will work as advertised when there is obviously a
> problem with the product. The same code works fine when compiled with
> version 1.7
> 
> Secondly I posted a question on the bug report forum asking if any one else
> had a similar problem and later noticed that it had been removed from the
> web site.
> 
>

hi,

> On march 31/08 I sent an email in to tech support with the second major
> anomaly I found in version 1.9

did you send a "full working sample" to show the BUG ?
did you get a PDR No. ?

if both "no" your "BUG" is not a "official" BUG and nobody will
work on it.

> The same code works fine when compiled with  version 1.7

that does not meen anything. Same can happend if you change OS()
or when you "upgrade" some M$ Patches.

> Secondly I posted a question on the bug report forum asking if any one 
> else
> had a similar problem and later noticed that it had been removed from the
> web site.

Alaska do not delete Message from Forum ... there is nobody who
is doing that Job ...

If you meen you find a BUG, please include a "working" Sample to show
us the BUG, else we (and Alaska) can not help you.

greetings by OHR
Jimmy

Doug,

Depending upon when you purchased v1.9, the reason for the Alaska fee is 
because of the new subscription program ?

As others have said, if you post an example I believe you will find many 
ready and able to assist you.

Rick