operations vs scripts or functions

[ocastillo]

Good morning,

Still learning AA, so perhaps this has been asked before. I've inherited a lot of operations spread across various databases and it appears as if many if not all of what the operations accomplish can be replaced with a script and functions in a consolidated database. Being able to import scripts and functions from other databases a very useful feature. I haven;t read anything that operations can be imported in the same way, so I have to ask what is the advantage of operations over scripts and functions, if any? Thanks in advance.

Oscar

[Stan Mathews]

Re: operations vs scripts or functions

Opinion: Operations are easy to construct with the genie and any filtering needed is easily constructed with the expression builder. Operations will serve many needs. Constructing the equivalent xbasic from scratch would be quite tedious.

The xbasic script behind an operation can be captured and offers a learning tool as well as an entry point when further customization is desired. Functions offer a means to encapsulate scripts and ensure their completion before the next step(s) in a sequence.

[Al Buchholz]

Re: operations vs scripts or functions

Oscar

Operations can be copied to another table/set and then moved to an appropriate table/set in the database.

They can also be copied to a new database by right clicking the operation - copy to - slide to the bottom of the list and choose <more...> to choose another database.

A distinct advantage of operations is they use C++ behind the scenes to do that work - usually faster than xbasic routines.

As always Your Mileage May Vary...

Stan's concept of using the xbasic produced by the operation is golden.

You can also use xbasic to generate the xbasic code for an operation and then execute that code.

Any language that allows you to programatically generate code shows you the power of the language.

So the concepts of operations vs functions vs scripts are not mutually exclusive.

I would lean towards functions because of their power and control of execution.

[MoGrace]

Re: operations vs scripts or functions

You can also use xbasic to generate the xbasic code for an operation and then execute that code.

You can? Got an example?

[DaveM]

Re: operations vs scripts or functions

open any operation and you can then look at the code generated by alpha. You can then copy that xbasic code to create a function.

One utility app I have had over 80 operations and I converted all of them to functions. They are run from a script in order that was needed. Quick as well.

Just choose the XB button in the operation

[Mike Wilson]

Re: operations vs scripts or functions

I'll chime in here. I agree with using what is best for the need. Operations are typically a single task/action event and run very fast. I remember this discussion years ago when Ira was a frequent contributor, and his answer would be to run an operation for single event tasks but for more complex multi-tasks, write a function. He contended that functions ran faster than scripts and assured completion of the function before code with multiple calls moved forward as has been said. I typically will pull out the xbasic code from an operation and place it in a UDF, as already stated, because it allows more control. Also, when developing, you can have the code open in a code editor tab and perform testing and make adjustments much much more efficiently when working on a script or UDFs versus an operation, where you have to go to the CP to the operations tab and make adjustments and view settings. I prefer functions over scripts because of the completion advantage, because you can send values through the function parameters without having to share variables, you can incorporate xdialogs well (which I use extensively) and and it's less words to type - function_to_do_this() vs script_play_local("function_to_do_this").

[Stan Mathews]

Re: operations vs scripts or functions

If my thinking/remembering is correct, operations are simply xdialog wrappers for the xbasic revealed. The xbasic for an operation should run at the same speed as the operation itself. If you are certain that such code will be executed without need to contend with other users you can change the table.open("sometablename") to table.open("sometablename",FILE_RW_EXCLUSIVE) and gain a bit more speed.

Operation xbasic is generally faster than coding xbasic to perform a similar task. For example, the appropriate dot variables followed by a_tbl.update() is much faster than opening a table and assigning values to fields within .change_begin() and .change_end() statements. As Al mentioned, the operation xbasic taps into lower level internal Alpha coding.