Showing posts with label activate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activate. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

What are handles and should I be using them?

The Uniface manuals describes a handle as...
A handle is a reference to an object, such as a component instance, entity, occurrence, or field. Handles can be used to call operations on the referenced object, or to pass these objects as variables and parameters.

If you're used to pointers, you may at first glance think that these are the same, but they're not.  A pointer contains the address of an item in memory and is therefore fixed, whereas a handle is an abstract reference, which means the address can be changed without breaking the reference.  This makes them very useful.

In Uniface you can have "public" or "partner" handles, which allow you to define which types of operations can access them.  They are also datatypes available for local, component and global variables, depending on the scope required.  I'm not going to discuss either of these points in detail, but I think it's handy to know.

As the description in the manual states, you can create a handle that references most Uniface objects, and there are different methods for creating these handles:  Component instances ($instancehandle), entity collections ($colhandle), entity occurrences ($occhandle), fields ($fieldhandle) and also OCX controls ($ocxhandle).  

I'm going to focus on component instances.  More specifically, I'm going to focus on creating new component instances, using newinstance and handles.  

As you might expect, creating a new instance of a form has a little lead time.  Using a handle doesn't stop this lead time, but what it does do, is mean that it only has to happen once.  This means that using a handle for a single form activation is not going to give you any advantage (unless you just love handles!) but when calling operations on the same form multiple times, handles could give you a performance improvement.

This is something like how you could activate a form...

  activate "TEST_FORM".test_oper("Test")


In fact this does an implicit newinstance as well (if it can't already find an instance with the same name as the form) and so explicitly your code could look like this...


  newinstance "TEST_FORM","TEST_FORM"
  activate "TEST_FORM".test_oper("Test")


If you were to replace this with a handle then you may use something like this...


  newinstance "TEST_FORM",theHandle
  theHandle->test_oper("Test")


Notice that in this case we have used a handle instead of an instance name in the newinstance call, and then we can use this handle in place of the activate command.  The -> is referred to by Uniface as the "dereference" operator, and is processed with a precedence of 2 (with only field indirection being higher).

So let's try these two different ways of activating an operation (in this case a very simple operation that simply returns out immediately).  The newinstance command is done before the loop, and the activate (or equivalent handle call) is done inside the loop, 200,000 times...


  • Using activate: 2.56, 2.61, 2.60 (about 2.6 seconds)
  • Using a handle: 2.39, 2.35, 2.39 (about 2.4 seconds)


As you can see, using a handle is marginally quicker, although you'd have to be making a lot of calls before you really noticed the difference.  

I thought that this would be even more useful when the handle references a component instance that is running on another server, such as when a form is mapped to run elsewhere, as the I thought the initial creation of the new instance would take longer here.  So I ran the same operation 20,000 times (after mapping the form)...


  • Using activate: 13.39, 14.35, 12.99 (about 13.5 seconds)
  • Using a handle: 13.56, 13.12, 12.91 (about 13.0 seconds)

Not much difference here either.  Having said that, maybe on a chatty network the difference would be greater.

Please note:  You must return out of the operation that you call, if you exit out then this will destroy the handle and future calls to the operation will fail with a $status of -1.  To clean up a handle you can either set it to 0 or "" (empty string). 


Summary: Handles are abstract references to pretty much any Uniface object.  They can be useful, especially if you want to call the same object multiple times, but they don't seem to have the performance benefits that I was expecting, not when it comes to component instances anyway.

Saturday, 7 June 2014

Sendmessage versus postmessage

If you wanted to send a message from one form to another, you could simply use sendmessage.  This was deprecated in favour of using activate, a command which has become pretty much a catch-all for all sorts of earlier commands, including run, perform, and spawn.  These all still work in Uniface 9.6, but as they were deprecated in Uniface 9.1, it's well worth trying to write these out of your code.

One example of this might be if you have retrieved multiple records in one form, and also have a second form open with related records in it; when you scroll through the occurrences in the first form you might want to post the primary key details through to the second form, so that only the records related to the current occurrence in the first form are displayed.

In order to do this, the first form would need to have code in the "Occurrence Gets Focus" <OGF> trigger, something like this...


  sendmessage "SECOND_FORM","PKEY","FIELD1.ENT=%%FIELD1.ENT%%%"

As you can see, because sendmessage is now deprecated, it is not highlighted as a reserved word.  You also get a compile warning like this...

  warning: 1000 - Deprecated statement 'sendmessage' used

You then need to have some code to receive this message in your second form, which needs to be in the "Asynchronous Interrupt" <ASYS> trigger, something like this...


  the_result = $result ;will be "message"
  message_id = $msgid ;will be "PKEY"
  message_data = $msgdata ;will be "FIELD1.ENT=xxx"

When using sendmessage or postmessage, $result will always be set to "message".  The second value that you define will become the $msgid and then third value will become the $msgdata.  

Please note:  If the <ASYS> trigger in the called component is blank then the application <ASYS> trigger will be called, as defined in the start-up shell.

So what's the difference between sendmessage and postmessage?  Can you simply go through and replace every sendmessage with a postmessage, or should you be using activate instead?

Well the difference is that sendmessage is synchronous and postmessage is asynchronous, which means that potentially there's a delay before the message will be received and processed with a postmessage.  Using an activate would be synchronous but you'd need to rewrite your code, probably moving the code in the <ASYS> trigger into an operation and then calling that from the <OGF> trigger.

Is this potential delay likely to cause a problem though?  Well for starters, can we see it in practice?  The answer to this is "yes", by putting sending code like this somewhere in a form (I went with the <EXEC> trigger)...


  putmess "Before sendmessage"
  sendmessage "TEST_PERF","MESSAGE","SENDMESSAGE"
  putmess "After sendmessage"

  putmess "Before postmessage"
  postmessage "TEST_PERF","MESSAGE","POSTMESSAGE"
  putmess "After postmessage"

And then putting the receiving code in the <ASYS> trigger, like this...


  putmess "In ASYS: ID=%%$msgid%%%, DATA=%%$msgdata%%%"

We can then run the form and view the message buffer...

  Before sendmessage
  In ASYS: ID=MESSAGE, DATA=SENDMESSAGE
  After sendmessage
  Before postmessage
  After postmessage
  In ASYS: ID=MESSAGE, DATA=POSTMESSAGE

As you can see, the sendmessage happens between the "before" and "after" (synchronously), whereas the postmessage happens at the very end (asynchronously).  This means that you have to be very careful about changing any sendmessage statements into postmessage statements - the code order will change, and you need to be aware of this and check this will not cause a problem.

As far as my testing has gone, the messages are always received and processed in the order that they were posted, as you may expect from a message queue.  Having said that, I've not found anything in the manuals that states explicitly that this order is enforced, so writing code that relies on the messages being processed in a particular order might not be wise.


Summary: The deprecated sendmessage command was sychronous whereas the postmessage command is asychronous, so you must be careful if you replace one with the other.  However, this is likely to be more straight forward than replacing with the activate command, as the manual suggests.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Reserved operation names

This is something which is well documented by Compuware, but which I always forget, and it always drives me a little insane trying to figure out what's going on!  


Uniface has some reserved (or "predefined") operation names...

  • init - executed when a component instance is created (newinstance or activate).
  • cleanup - executed when a component instance is removed (deleteinstance or exit or completion of <accept> or <quit>).
  • attach - executed when a contained DSP is attached to a parent DSP.
  • detach - executed when a child DSP is detached from its parent.
  • exec - executed when a component is activated (activate or run).
  • accept - executed when an "accept" request is invoked on the current component (<accept>).
  • quit - executed when a "quit" request is invoked on the current component (<quit>).


EDIT:  The following operation names have been reserved for future use...
  • abort
  • complete

This means that you cannot have an operation defined with this name in the operations (<oper>) trigger, unless you are using it for this purpose specifically.  If you do then this operation will be fired when you call it, and in the above situation as well.  

I had an AJAX operation on a SVC called "init" which I simply could not figure out why it was firing twice.  In this case, it was firing once as the form was being activated (by calling the operation) and then again because I had called the operation.  This baffled me for some time!

Summary: Do not accidently use reserved operation names for your operations, or you may get some unexpected behaviour!