🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob Reeves" <bob@somethinxtra.com> wrote in message 
news:469b97ec$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Thanks for responding..
>
> All the network components and configuration settings were checked, double
> checked and most replaced at some point during the troubleshooting 
> process.
> The software doesn't call GetLastError, it just checks for a non 0 return. 
> I
> know it should have been in the code in the first place but this code has
> worked fine in many installations over 7 years. What few problems we have
> had were always traced to an easily found network problem.
>
> We just finished building a replacement for the NT machine and am hoping 
> the
> customer will just let me ship him the replacement.

And if not?

I can't help but wonder how many of the "traced to an easily found network 
problem" could have been solved even more quickly with a well-placed 
GetLastError.  And just because you've never found it useful before, doesn't 
mean that GetLastError wouldn't be useful now.  Surely by now you understand 
that there are many hundreds and thousands of ways software can fail, and 
that no one problem-solving technique can resolve them all.


> When I get his machine back I will see if I can duplicate the problem 
> here.

But you just said that "it has worked fine in many installations over 7 
years."  What makes you think that you will be able to duplicate such an 
elusive bug in another (even more predictable) environment?  That seems very 
contradictory to me.  I still think a simple software change to check for 
the exact error would be more effective.

- Dennis