Westwind Web Connection server on LAN: can SPT (MS SQL) work ? 4

[Steve Yu]

Hello colleagues,
We have a working Web Connection server on a LAN (internal web) that employs .dbf and .idx only currently.
Is it possible to add SPT coding to access the MS SQL tables that are on the same LAN concurrently ?
This is our effort to expand exiting desktop applications to include access from the web.
Help appreciated.

Steve Yu

 

[Steve Yu]

What are you doing in which methods of which classes?
And I don't see anything from your screenshot that tells me anything. I see the U and N in the screen that displays the WC window. That's in the process that runs the WC, server side, right? That's one process, but that's not a worker that should process the requests, or your server is a singlethreaded process.

The process shown on the screenshot is the only one that we have; as you can see multiple requests are handled and displayed sequentially in the same window.
So I guess what we have is a singlethread process. We do have a dozen or so different requests, but all go through the same process (web.prg in our case).
As to SQL connection, I left the connection open at end of each request (and the process running) last night and this morning I sent another request and the SQL connection is still active and I got a response with no errors.
That was my question about the stateless nature of requests.

 

[Chris Miller]

Of course there is one process that displays the WC windows listing all requests. That's not intended to process the requests, though, that's the process that should only route requests to one of multiple worker processes. You're not using WC as it is intended to be used in that last aspect. You ignore what I already poointed out in multiple ways by pointing out documentation.

Continue as you like, but you're not making use of the full potential of WC offers.

 

[Steve Yu]

Of course there is one process that displays the WC windows listing all requests. That's not intended to process the requests, though, that's the process that should only route requests to one of multiple worker processes. You're not using WC as it is intended to be used in that last aspect. You ignore what I already poointed out in multiple ways by pointing out documentation.

Continue as you like, but you're not making use of the full potential of WC offers.

Comments well noted. This setup of ours has been working for over a decade and has served our purpose well. Yes it does come with limitations with our customization. But so far so good. And the new SQL logic, after initial testing, seems to be doable; that was my concern when I posted this thread.
Thanks again.

 

[Chris Miller]

Fine, I just conclude you're asking about advice about something that you modified from it's intention, so nobody can actually give you advice as it's modified against intents. Finally you now found out yourself and only partially listened to suggested analysis. In the end it's your freedom to use it unforseen.

You can buy a sports car, replace the engine with that of a motor cycle and drive it without accidents. Of course, you can.