CodeStore.net comments on "A Reason Not to Like Notes"

Reply from Jake Howlett

Jake Howlett — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:39:13 -0600

In the past customers of mine have settled for emails sent out immediately which are worded along the following lines:

"Your account has now been created and your password is &*^^%^. If at first you can't login please allow 10 minutes for our systems to update."

Not ideal, but it works.

Jake

Reply from Fabian Robok

Fabian Robok — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:24:55 -0600

LOL. You just found the right words for what I always thought. :-)

Anyway, there's one thing I find much more annoying when working with "real" (read: DD entry) user registration attempts. I never know when and if Domino will really pick up the account and in particular any group memberships.

Maybe it's only me, but to date I have not found a reliable way to send out a notification message to the new registered users at a point in time, where I can be absolutely sure, that the new account is fully functional. If you have available any magic tricks here, let it flow.

Reply from Andrew Pollack

Andrew Pollack — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:35:32 -0600

I've done quite a bit of performance testing, and found that in a majority of cases evaluate() is faster (by far) than doing the same thing in Lotuscript. Lotuscript is always interpreted where Evaluate() calls a formula language processing api which is compiled. In one test case, I compared @password() for creating hash to an actual lotuscript written hash algorithm, and the rest was hundreds of times faster in evaluate.

Another advantage, as in this case, is that you increase the chances of a bug (yours or lotus's) that would result in your two code paths having a different result when you need to perform the same routine in both languages. Less code == better code.

Reply from Fredrik Stöckel

Fredrik Stöckel — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:52:37 -0600

actually - evaluate() and @Eval can be very very useful if you want to be able to modify your rules in *one* place without having to modify the code in several places and if you want to be sure that the exact same code is executed (which is perhaps preferred and a bit beautiful in a situation like this? (keep the rules in one place)) imho at least.

Just store your @Formula expression in a doc, retrieve it from the executing code and run it via @eval/evaluate().

my 2...

Reply from Jaap

Jaap — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:21:22 -0600

Hi Jake, You need to love Notes, I am not gonna tell you how many hours I wasted in that other M.... world ;-) where you needs A4 pages of code while the @formula is just within a page rule length.

LOVE NOTES

Reply from Jake Howlett

Jake Howlett — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:29:11 -0600

If using the whole alphabet trick hadn't worked then I'd have "happily" gone for the Evaluate method instead. I just try to avoid it unless completely necessary and all avenues have been exhausted. It feels awkward and cumbersome having to dim the variant and all that malarkey.

Performance is very rarely an issue in most things that I work on.

Reply from Jerry Carter

Jerry Carter — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:21:31 -0600

And here I thought I knew you so well. All the righteous hacks to get Domino to behave that you've taught us over the years, I figured you'd be the furthest thing from a LotusScript purist. I can't get it to do my job for me without liberal and judicious abuse and misuse. I suppose my LS function from years ago that wrote a vbs file for some bailing-wire automation would receive a level stare from you. ;-)

Not to wax apologist, but you know using Evaluate in some circumstances can yield substantial performance benefits... LS2J instances should always be kept to a minimum though or you're just begging for sluggishness.

Reply from Jake Howlett

Jake Howlett — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:31:29 -0600

It's not that I forgot about it. It's just that there's an LS equivalent to the @Function I'd used and, in that case, you'd like to assume, there'd be no need for Evaluate(). So I went down the pure LS path. Once I'd got to the point of no return I didn't even consider evaluate().

Also, yes I'm a purist and hate to use Evaluate unless there's no alternative.

Reply from Jerry Carter

Jerry Carter — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:07:06 -0600

LOL! Did you forget Evaluate() or are you now whimsically some crazed LS purist?

It's pretty darn efficient is what it is! :-)

Reply from Jake Howlett

Jake Howlett — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:28:01 -0600

Never liked the idea of using either ls2j or createobject in LS. I'd rather just rewrite the whole agent in java!

Reply from Jake Howlett

Jake Howlett — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:25:13 -0600

Because evalaute() is cheating.

Reply from Erik Brooks

Erik Brooks — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:25:56 -0600

Ummm.....

Why not just Evaluate() the same @Formula?

Dim s as String

s = |

@Length(Password)>6 & @Matches(Password; "*{A-Z}*")

& @Matches(Password; "*{a-z}*") & @Matches(Password; "*{0-9}*")

Dim vResult as Variant

vResult = Evaluate(s, yourDoc)

Print (vResult(0))

Reply from Roman Kopac

Roman Kopac — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:13:00 -0600

Forget about anything serious about regular expressions in LS. Just use Java and LJ2J if you need to work with LS. Tommy Valand wrote about it http://dontpanic82.blogspot.com/2007/10/simple-ls2j-regular-expression-class.html. It has served me well.

Reply from Mark Roden

Mark Roden — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:53:52 -0600

Regular Expressions are always a great way to test passwords

LotusScript

http://lekkimworld.com/2005/09/25/1127661564236.html

LotusScript

http://www.openntf.org/projects/pmt.. ..70053f5cd/468846f664e3212c862577a50053b3ff!OpenDocument

Javascript in the client

http://www.breakingpar.com/bkp/home.nsf/0/87256B280015193F87256C4F005D3717

Reply from Jake Howlett

Jake Howlett — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:27:02 -0600

Was about to say the Help files says it's case-sensitive by default and my code doesn't change the compare option at any point.

Reply from Jeroen Jacobs

Jeroen Jacobs — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:24:57 -0600

Forget what I said... "Option Compare Case" seems to be the default anyway ...

Reply from Sven Hasselbach

Sven Hasselbach — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:20:54 -0600

Hi,

if you use "Option Compare Binary" the Like-Operator works correctly.

Sven

Reply from Jeroen Jacobs

Jeroen Jacobs — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:19:23 -0600

I'm not sure it's a bug...

By default, string comparisons in LotusScript are case-insensitive, and "like" is a kind of string comparision...

What happens if you put in "Option compare Case" before you start comparing?

Reply from Mike

Mike — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:10:06 -0600

I know the feeling.

Of course, all other options other than Notes are not bug free either. Maybe an hour isn't too bad compared to some other tools?