HTML Text Editor
HTML Text Editor
- Subject: HTML Text Editor
- From: "Paul Mathews" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:23:12 +1000
tiny_mce for me too...
> Send Webobjects-dev mailing list submissions to
> email@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> email@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> email@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Webobjects-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Decisions, decisions... (Logiciels Malus Softwares)
> 2. HTML Text Editor (Colin Shreffler)
> 3. Re: Decisions, decisions... (Ken Anderson)
> 4. Re: HTML Text Editor (Geoff Hopson)
> 5. Re: Decisions, decisions... (Andrus Adamchik)
> 6. Re: How many is too many instances? (email@hidden)
> 7. Re: HTML Text Editor (Guido Neitzer)
> 8. Re: How many is too many instances? (Jerry W. Walker)
> 9. [OT?]Help needed with data access MS SQL Server
> 2005/EOModeler (Ute Hoffmann)
> 10. RE: [OT?]Help needed with data access MS SQL Server
> 2005/EOModeler (Ruenagel, Frank)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:05:43 -0500
> From: Logiciels Malus Softwares <email@hidden>
> Subject: Decisions, decisions...
> To: email@hidden
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm new to this list, and I have been looking for a "good excuse" to
> do WO development for a while... Now I have this project that looks
> like a good candidate, but I have been asked to compare WO with
> PHP... I know, I know, not the same beast, and though both are
> fruits, one is an apple and the other one is an orange. However, I do
> have to compare... And therein lies my problem: I can not, for the
> love of me, come to a decision? (Obviously I am biased since I ask
> here, though... : ) )
>
> What we are looking at here is a website with forums, file exchange,
> mass-mailing functionality, and a very, very basic text-editor.
> That's for the first couple of phases. Then.. .Who knows. But it's
> basically an enhanced online community. We are probably going to have
> about 2000 users.
>
> Now, I know PHP can probably do all that, and the community is _huge_
> with a lot of libraries and all that. I'm a little concerned about
> some of PHP's shortcomings (those I have found discussed on the web)
> like lower security, not being too friendly with teams of developers;
> though I will only be the only programmer for now, I can see this
> becoming a 2-3 programmers project in the future. And I really like
> to be able to extract the logic from the web pages. (I know I can do
> that with Smarty in PHP) On a totally personnal note, I'm more
> confident with Obj-C or Java than C/C++ at this point (my C++ is
> really rusty) and I understand if I ever need to develop "plug-ins"
> or "extras" in PHP, it's C/C++...
>
> On the other hand, WO feels like it's just a bit too big for this
> project; I know the learning curve will be steeper, but I am counting
> on long term gains in maintenance... The other thing against WO is
> that, right now, it would mean buying it - my thoughts were to buy a
> Mac Mini, install Mac OS X server on there, and host it at
> macminicolo or something... But, it would mean $$$ in the short term.
> The other concern was that it would be easier to find PHP coders if/
> when we need help, than WO coders... Though since WO is Java, I guess
> it's not such a good argument after all...
>
> Sooooo, I'm all mixed up! I _want_ the answer to be WO ; ) but I just
> can't in good faith find a valid, solid argument (or even better:
> "set of arguments") to tip the scale in WO's favor... Since for this
> kind of project, it feels like PHP might be very capable, cheaper and
> allow us to grow the team over time...
>
> Anybody has any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jean
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:15:50 -0700
> From: Colin Shreffler <email@hidden>
> Subject: HTML Text Editor
> To: "WebObjects (Group)" <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <C0012D16.29EF0%email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Can anyone recommend a good HTML/Rich Text Editor that integrates well with
> with web objects?
>
> I basically need to provider my users with the ability to format text to be
> displayed within an intranet application.
>
> Cheers
> -c
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.apple.com/pipermail/webobjects-dev/attachments/20060128/e9e9ad48/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:30:12 -0500
> From: Ken Anderson <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
> To: Logiciels Malus Softwares <email@hidden>
> Cc: email@hidden
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> How many of those 2000 users will be concurrent? If the answer is
> more than around 50, I think performance will answer your question.
> WO will beat the pants off PHP with a lot of users. My guess is your
> hardware costs will get quite high with a PHP based solution, where a
> maxed out xServe will probably handle hundreds of users before
> getting bogged down.
>
> In terms of cost, WO is part of the standard development package now
> - no extra cost. If you mean hardware cost, wouldn't you have to buy
> something to run the PHP site on?
>
> Ken
>
> On Jan 28, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Logiciels Malus Softwares wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm new to this list, and I have been looking for a "good excuse"
> > to do WO development for a while... Now I have this project that
> > looks like a good candidate, but I have been asked to compare WO
> > with PHP... I know, I know, not the same beast, and though both are
> > fruits, one is an apple and the other one is an orange. However, I
> > do have to compare... And therein lies my problem: I can not, for
> > the love of me, come to a decision? (Obviously I am biased since I
> > ask here, though... : ) )
> >
> > What we are looking at here is a website with forums, file
> > exchange, mass-mailing functionality, and a very, very basic text-
> > editor. That's for the first couple of phases. Then.. .Who knows.
> > But it's basically an enhanced online community. We are probably
> > going to have about 2000 users.
> >
> > Now, I know PHP can probably do all that, and the community is
> > _huge_ with a lot of libraries and all that. I'm a little concerned
> > about some of PHP's shortcomings (those I have found discussed on
> > the web) like lower security, not being too friendly with teams of
> > developers; though I will only be the only programmer for now, I
> > can see this becoming a 2-3 programmers project in the future. And
> > I really like to be able to extract the logic from the web pages.
> > (I know I can do that with Smarty in PHP) On a totally personnal
> > note, I'm more confident with Obj-C or Java than C/C++ at this
> > point (my C++ is really rusty) and I understand if I ever need to
> > develop "plug-ins" or "extras" in PHP, it's C/C++...
> >
> > On the other hand, WO feels like it's just a bit too big for this
> > project; I know the learning curve will be steeper, but I am
> > counting on long term gains in maintenance... The other thing
> > against WO is that, right now, it would mean buying it - my
> > thoughts were to buy a Mac Mini, install Mac OS X server on there,
> > and host it at macminicolo or something... But, it would mean $$$
> > in the short term. The other concern was that it would be easier to
> > find PHP coders if/when we need help, than WO coders... Though
> > since WO is Java, I guess it's not such a good argument after all...
> >
> > Sooooo, I'm all mixed up! I _want_ the answer to be WO ; ) but I
> > just can't in good faith find a valid, solid argument (or even
> > better: "set of arguments") to tip the scale in WO's favor... Since
> > for this kind of project, it feels like PHP might be very capable,
> > cheaper and allow us to grow the team over time...
> >
> > Anybody has any thoughts on this?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Jean
> > _______________________________________________
> > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> > 40anderhome.com
> >
> > This email sent to email@hidden
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:02:08 +0000
> From: Geoff Hopson <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: HTML Text Editor
> To: Colin Shreffler <email@hidden>
> Cc: "WebObjects \(Group\)" <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I've been using tiny_mce - works OK for me.
>
> Geoff
>
> On 28/01/06, Colin Shreffler <email@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone recommend a good HTML/Rich Text Editor that integrates well
> > with with web objects?
> >
> > I basically need to provider my users with the ability to format text to
> > be displayed within an intranet application.
> >
> > Cheers
> > -c
> > _______________________________________________
> > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> >
> >
> > This email sent to email@hidden
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.apple.com/pipermail/webobjects-dev/attachments/20060128/7034ad92/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:49:53 -0500
> From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions...
> To: WebObjects Development <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I think you nailed it down yourself pretty well. Add to that what Ken
> wrote about performance, and you have the full picture. Now it's up
> to you to make a decision. From experience I know it can be hard when
> your instincts tell you one thing and the logic of business - the
> opposite ;-)
>
> How I solved it for myself? I cheated by changing the options to
> choose from, substituting "WebObjects" with "open source Java
> frameworks". With this the only downside of Java compared to PHP
> remains the need to run an extra piece of software - Java web
> container. Fewer companies host Java than PHP, still on the low end
> prices are very reasonable for Java as well ($20-40/month).
>
> Andrus
>
> On Jan 28, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Logiciels Malus Softwares wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm new to this list, and I have been looking for a "good excuse"
> > to do WO development for a while... Now I have this project that
> > looks like a good candidate, but I have been asked to compare WO
> > with PHP... I know, I know, not the same beast, and though both are
> > fruits, one is an apple and the other one is an orange. However, I
> > do have to compare... And therein lies my problem: I can not, for
> > the love of me, come to a decision? (Obviously I am biased since I
> > ask here, though... : ) )
> >
> > What we are looking at here is a website with forums, file
> > exchange, mass-mailing functionality, and a very, very basic text-
> > editor. That's for the first couple of phases. Then.. .Who knows.
> > But it's basically an enhanced online community. We are probably
> > going to have about 2000 users.
> >
> > Now, I know PHP can probably do all that, and the community is
> > _huge_ with a lot of libraries and all that. I'm a little concerned
> > about some of PHP's shortcomings (those I have found discussed on
> > the web) like lower security, not being too friendly with teams of
> > developers; though I will only be the only programmer for now, I
> > can see this becoming a 2-3 programmers project in the future. And
> > I really like to be able to extract the logic from the web pages.
> > (I know I can do that with Smarty in PHP) On a totally personnal
> > note, I'm more confident with Obj-C or Java than C/C++ at this
> > point (my C++ is really rusty) and I understand if I ever need to
> > develop "plug-ins" or "extras" in PHP, it's C/C++...
> >
> > On the other hand, WO feels like it's just a bit too big for this
> > project; I know the learning curve will be steeper, but I am
> > counting on long term gains in maintenance... The other thing
> > against WO is that, right now, it would mean buying it - my
> > thoughts were to buy a Mac Mini, install Mac OS X server on there,
> > and host it at macminicolo or something... But, it would mean $$$
> > in the short term. The other concern was that it would be easier to
> > find PHP coders if/when we need help, than WO coders... Though
> > since WO is Java, I guess it's not such a good argument after all...
> >
> > Sooooo, I'm all mixed up! I _want_ the answer to be WO ; ) but I
> > just can't in good faith find a valid, solid argument (or even
> > better: "set of arguments") to tip the scale in WO's favor... Since
> > for this kind of project, it feels like PHP might be very capable,
> > cheaper and allow us to grow the team over time...
> >
> > Anybody has any thoughts on this?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Jean
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:40:29 +0100
> From: email@hidden
> Subject: Re: How many is too many instances?
> To: WebObjects-Dev <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> The short answer is "When performance degrades for a given load you
> are running too many instances.". When performance degrades, depends
> on your particular application & environment. But those are
> universal characteristics of any performance problem. Hence the
> suggestion about JavaPlaybackManager for simulating client load.
> Such a tool could help you determine if your site is limited by CPU,
> RAM, or bandwidth. (i.e., where is your bottleneck actually, and can
> more instances help that at all?)
>
> There are any number of tools you can use to simulate client load.
> The key is to not let the test tool dictate the test. (i.e., don't
> write a bash script that calls curl on the main page just because you
> can and it is easy.) But then you would also want to not have too
> many scripts resulting ins simple read-only actions, if the reality
> is that many people will be writing. Even for the reading actions
> you want variety, otherwise you'll be testing the caching of your DB.
>
> Then there are problems with writes too, are you always writing the
> same data (making indexes less effective for queries). Not to
> mention the ever present problem of getting a second 'live site' for
> testing. You can use 'the' live site at 'night' unless you have
> customers around the world. And the problem with your site may have
> nothing to do with the number of instances you are running. Testing
> on your local developer machine is good enough when you are looking
> for large improvements in generation time for a particular page, but
> it isn't good for load testing. What makes a page fast on one
> platform is likely to help on another. But I wouldn't bet on the
> times being the same for both platforms, nor the improvements.
>
> So if there isn't an answer to the question without load tests, and
> (useful) load tests are almost impossible to write/carry out, what to
> do? I think you have two thirds of it already. You don't want to
> actually run 16 instances with the 4GB, cause you want some left over
> for other activities. Basically you want to use so few instances
> that your machine doesn't ever swap. For your example, that number
> is much lower than 16. You're on track with the CPU bit. I would
> wonder where your DB (that I assume you have) is running? If load is
> a concern and you want to simplify things then running your DB on a
> separate machine may be a good idea.
>
> Aside from that you can simply monitor your statistics over the long
> term and try different configurations. Eventually I bet you find the
> number of instances has little effect on the overall performance.
> That's the good news and another short answer.
>
> Am 27.01.2006 um 23:05 schrieb Eric Stewart:
>
> > How do you know when you are running to many instances of a WO App on
> > a given server?
> >
> > I understand that you obviously can't run more instances than you have
> > memory to work with. So if you have 4 GB of memory and your running WO
> > Apps consuming 256 MB per app, obviously you can't run more than
> > roughly 16 apps.
> >
> > I realize that the number of processors is also going to play a role
> > in this. Just because you have enough memory to run 16 apps doesn't
> > mean that's your ceiling. If you have only two processors, then you
> > can at most simulateously handle 2 operations. In this case do you
> > just monitor your CPU usage and once you start approaching 50-75% CPU
> > utilization on a constant basis then you know you are running the max
> > number of instances you should be running.
> >
> > What do you guys who deploy large applications with millions of
> > requests per day look for when determining exactly how many instances
> > to run on a given server.
> >
> > Thank you for your time,
> >
> > Eric Stewart
> > email@hidden
> > _______________________________________________
> > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> > 40mac.com
> >
> > This email sent to email@hidden
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:46:48 +0100
> From: Guido Neitzer <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: HTML Text Editor
> To: "WebObjects (Group)" <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On 28.01.2006, at 23:02 Uhr, Geoff Hopson wrote:
>
> > I've been using tiny_mce - works OK for me.
>
> Same here.
>
> cug
>
> --
> PharmaLine, Essen, GERMANY
> Software and Database Development
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:54:15 -0500
> From: "Jerry W. Walker" <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: How many is too many instances?
> To: Eric Stewart <email@hidden>
> Cc: WebObjects-Dev <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Hi, Eric,
>
> I would rephrase your question from "How do you know when you are
> running too many instances..." to "How do you know when you are
> running enough instances..."
>
> If one presumes that "too many" instances of a WOApp is one more than
> "enough" instances, these could be said to be the same question. The
> more general question underlying both of these, however, is how do
> you optimize your application. But that's a deeper topic than I can
> afford to respond to here.
>
> The rest of this message presumes that you're familiar with WO's
> built-in statistics collecting and display. If not, send another
> message on that topic. That facility is both too valuable and too
> convenient to leave out of your optimizing bag of tricks.
>
> The first question to ask, and still keep things simple, is what are
> you optimizing for, response time or throughput? If throughput is
> your issue, I would look first to moving the database to another
> host. If you've done that, then start increasing your number of
> instances, but don't expect a great deal of throughput improvement
> from this technique past the point of a couple instances per CPU on
> your host. You can gain some throughput advantage with one instance
> taking advantage of the wait times of another instance, but the
> marginal throughput advantage of adding instances goes down quickly
> beyond two per CPU. And, of course, watch for thrashing, which can
> destroy the effect of any other improvements quite quickly.
>
> However, if response time rather than throughput is the issue, more
> instances can help a lot if you have long running queries. There are
> other approaches to this problem, but increasing the number of
> instances is probably the simplest effective response. In this case,
> start with one instance for each CPU in your server. Collect
> statistics for a day or so, then increase to two instances per CPU.
> Again collect and analyze your statistics and repeat until you see
> little effective improvement in average response times. Basically,
> what you're trying to do here is to keep the next user's request from
> blocking behind an earlier long running request. For every user's
> request that blocks behind that long running request, you've
> increased the number of users who perceive your web site to be slow,
> whether it is or not.
>
> These statistics are best collected on an app running in production,
> since that will give you the most valid request profile. If you're
> already running in production with many instances and are afraid of
> going all the way back to one instance per CPU for analysis, then
> approach the problem from the other direction. However many instances
> you are currently running, take the statistics for a day, then
> decrease the number of instances by one to determine the marginal
> improvement that you've just lost for that one. Continue removing
> instances until you see a significant difference, then add that
> instance back in.
>
> Other than just guessing, there are few other ways to approach the
> number of instance problem because it tends to be very dependent on
> the specific application.
>
> Regards,
> Jerry
>
> On Jan 27, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Eric Stewart wrote:
>
> > How do you know when you are running to many instances of a WO App on
> > a given server?
> >
> > I understand that you obviously can't run more instances than you have
> > memory to work with. So if you have 4 GB of memory and your running WO
> > Apps consuming 256 MB per app, obviously you can't run more than
> > roughly 16 apps.
> >
> > I realize that the number of processors is also going to play a role
> > in this. Just because you have enough memory to run 16 apps doesn't
> > mean that's your ceiling. If you have only two processors, then you
> > can at most simulateously handle 2 operations. In this case do you
> > just monitor your CPU usage and once you start approaching 50-75% CPU
> > utilization on a constant basis then you know you are running the max
> > number of instances you should be running.
> >
> > What do you guys who deploy large applications with millions of
> > requests per day look for when determining exactly how many instances
> > to run on a given server.
> >
> > Thank you for your time,
> >
> > Eric Stewart
> > email@hidden
> > _______________________________________________
> > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> > 40gmail.com
> >
> > This email sent to email@hidden
>
> --
> __ Jerry W. Walker,
> WebObjects Developer/Instructor for High Performance Industrial
> Strength Internet Enabled Systems
>
> email@hidden
> 203 278-4085 office
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:37:43 +0100
> From: Ute Hoffmann <email@hidden>
> Subject: [OT?]Help needed with data access MS SQL Server
> 2005/EOModeler
> To: email@hidden
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
> I need some help with a connection to MSSQL Express 2005. I got a
> running install Windows 2000 and in the same network a Mac Os X Tiger
> with WO. All seems well, I can somehow access my Database through
> monitor.... BUT
>
> I would like to get the tables I created (in this simple test install a
> table called adress)... but what I see in place when I connect to my
> database through EOModeler (in the wizard, where one choses the tables
> one wants to connect to) is a huge number of sys.something and
> INFORMATION_SCHEMA.something entries, but nothing of the table I really
> want to access. All those entries look to me like system tables.
>
> Is there anyone around who has experience with MSSQL Server and WO who
> perhaps can give me a hint what to do to get to the table I want to
> connect to.
>
> Yes, the database exists, the table is in there, the user can access it
> in sqlcmd and select * from tablename gives back the correct data. So
> where is this table when connecting by EOModeler?
>
> Is this a rights problem? I gave that user the rights on the database.
> Do I need to give it access to the table as well?
>
> It definitely has read access in the sqlcmd...I can see those values!
>
> Any clues?
>
> Thanks for any suggestion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ute
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:02:32 +0100
> From: "Ruenagel, Frank" <email@hidden>
> Subject: RE: [OT?]Help needed with data access MS SQL Server
> 2005/EOModeler
> To: "Ute Hoffmann" <email@hidden>
> Cc: email@hidden
> Message-ID:
> <email@hidden>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi,
>
> this sounds very strange. EOModeler
> seems to find the "Master"-database, not the database
> your table "adress" is in. I tested EOModeler's "create model wizard"
> with a SQL-Server's "master" database: I also got
> the Information-Schema-views in Eomodeler's table-list.
> Your URL should look like:
>
> jdbc:microsoft:sqlserver://xx.xx.xx.xx:1433;DatabaseName=MYDATABASE
>
> If you skip "DatabaseName", the driver picks the default Database:
> Master.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Frank
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: webobjects-dev-bounces+webobjects=email@hidden
> > [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+webobjects=symposion.de@lists.a
> > pple.com]O
> > n Behalf Of Ute Hoffmann
> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:38 PM
> > To: email@hidden
> > Subject: [OT?]Help needed with data access MS SQL Server
> > 2005/EOModeler
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I need some help with a connection to MSSQL Express 2005. I got a
> > running install Windows 2000 and in the same network a Mac Os X Tiger
> > with WO. All seems well, I can somehow access my Database through
> > monitor.... BUT
> >
> > I would like to get the tables I created (in this simple test
> > install a
> > table called adress)... but what I see in place when I connect to my
> > database through EOModeler (in the wizard, where one choses
> > the tables
> > one wants to connect to) is a huge number of sys.something and
> > INFORMATION_SCHEMA.something entries, but nothing of the
> > table I really
> > want to access. All those entries look to me like system tables.
> >
> > Is there anyone around who has experience with MSSQL Server
> > and WO who
> > perhaps can give me a hint what to do to get to the table I want to
> > connect to.
> >
> > Yes, the database exists, the table is in there, the user can
> > access it
> > in sqlcmd and select * from tablename gives back the correct data. So
> > where is this table when connecting by EOModeler?
> >
> > Is this a rights problem? I gave that user the rights on the
> > database.
> > Do I need to give it access to the table as well?
> >
> > It definitely has read access in the sqlcmd...I can see those values!
> >
> > Any clues?
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ute
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> email@hidden
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webobjects-dev mailing list
> email@hidden
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
>
> End of Webobjects-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 56
> *********************************************
--
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden