Re: Forms/PVCS users out there ?

From: Mal Heseltine <mth_at_qld.mim.com.au>
Date: 1997/08/21
Message-ID: <33FBB46F.3C05_at_qld.mim.com.au>#1/1


Yes.

The Oracle interface to PVCS is of not much value at this stage.

It's not tightly integrated with PVCS (level 1), for example, there's no concept of opening a file as read-only in Developer 2000 if it hasn't been checked out of PVCS. There is the potential for losing code through developers opening files and working on code in a working directory that then gets clobbered as soon as someone checks out the PVCS version to the working directory.

I believe Oracle are working on providing a higher level of integration with PVCS (level 2), perhaps Developer V2.

Keywords can still be used in a limited sense. The $Log$ keyword cannot be used because it can expand to more than one line which will cause problems with .fmb, .pll and .rdf files. However, the $Revision::$ keyword can be used where the space after the :: defines the amount of space to be used by the expanded keyword. So you could write a procedure to extract the expanded revision number into a global variable, include the revision number in the form level comments, include the revision number with the module name displayed on the screen etc etc

Mal.

Scott Whitehead wrote:
>
> I am implementing PVCS to use in conjunction with Forms. After
> several weeks experimentation and a couple of calls to Oracle support,
> I have found that there is nothing to be gained using the Forms PVCS
> interface. We are better off using the GUI provided with PVCS. Even
> though the Forms interface will convert to text (.FMT) automatically
> before checking it into PVCS (and visa-versa when checking out),
> Oracle support steered me away from that since the FMT format will
> change in Developer/2000 version 2.0, thus rendering our archives
> unusable. So we will be using the PVCS GUI tool and version the
> binary FMBs. So the major drawbacks are: no differencing and no use
> of keywords. But I guess I'll have to live with it.
>
> Anyone else find this same scenario ? Did you come to the same
> conclusions ?
Received on Thu Aug 21 1997 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message