Double check Invoice in SES
Dear All,
During IV there a Double Check Invoice Functionality is there.
Is there any thing Where It will throw me Warning or Error at the time of SES(Service entry sheet),as the user are entering the same Invoice no twice??
I have made the Reference No Mandatory.
Hi Yogesh,
the problem is NOT MIRO, it is the posting of the SES with the same invoice number as another SES.
The problem is that there is NO invoice number on the SES, if the user is entering the invoice number in the reference field on the acceptance data the system does NOT carry out a check for duplicates because this is not meant to be used for an invoice number.
If you want to get the system to check for duplicate REFERENCE numbers then I would suggest a user exit or modification.
Steve B
Similar Messages
-
I have upgraded to an Iphone 6 and am at IOS 8.2. My calendar alerts no longer show up as notifications on my phone. I have gone into settings and double checked that notifications for calendar was on and it is. Any ideas on a fix?
I have iPhone 4s but the same problem with calendar on 8.2 iOS - no sound, no notification appears - but everything is switched on.
-
I just got a message on my computer and my phone that an ex girlfriend of mine's phone was just added to my imessage account. For obvious reasons, I'm not okay with that. I just messaged her on facebook and double checked if the name of the phone sent to me is the label of her phone, and it was. She then sent me a screen shot of her phone's imessage settings page though saying that its only connected to her account. I dont believe that she is lying to to me, but I dont believe my computer is either. Is there a way I can double check what devices are linked to my accccount and remove one if need be?
Hi Connor,
The only "accounts" on iMessage are the accounts you have set up. Open iMessage, from the top toolbar click on Messages>Preferences>Accounts
There you will see what accounts are set up on your iMessage app. If your ex-girlfriend is still set up in your Contacts, you may want to remove her from there.
Cheers,
GB -
Double Factory pattern purposal as replacement for Double Check #2
Hi All,
Here is the code for the pattern proposal, its intended as a replacement for double checked locking, which was proved to be broken in 2001. Here is the code...
public class DoubleFactory {
private static Object second_reference = null;
public static Object getInstance() {
Object toRet = second_reference;
if (toRet == null) {
second_reference = CreationFactory.createInstance();
toRet = second_reference;
return toRet;
private DoubleFactory() {}
public class CreationFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static synchronized Object createInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Object();
return instance;
}Also I have spent several months discussing this with Peter Haggar, who believes that this code is not guaranteed to work. However I have been unable to discern from his message why he believes this will not be guaranteed to work, and I am posting this here to attempt to find a clearer explanation or confirmation that the pattern I am purposing (Double Factory) is guaranteed to work.
Thanks,
Scott
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2] From:
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, January 25, 2008 10:36 pm
To: "Peter Haggar" <[email protected]>
Hi Peter,
I appologize if my last response came accross as rude or something. If
my code is not guaranteed to work ok, can you help me understand why. I
am after all looking for a solution for all of us.
If my solution is wrong as you say because the member variables of the
singleton are not up to date. I understand this to mean that the
second_reference pointer is assigned to the memory where the instance
object will get created before the instance object even starts the
creation process (when the jvm allocates memory and then enters the
constructor method of the Singleton). This doesn't seem possible to me.
Can you refrase your statments, to help me understand your points?
If not I am happy to turn to the original wiki for discussion.
Thanks for your effort,
Scott
Thanks for asking my opinion, many times, then telling me I'm
wrong...wonderful. You are a piece of work my friend. For what it'sworth, your email below shows you still don't understand these issues
or what I was saying in my emails. I've been more than patient.
>
All the best. And by the way, your code is not guaranteed to work. It's not just me that's "wrong", it's also the engineers at Sun who
designed Java, the JVM, and the memory model, and countless people who
have studied it. I'm glad you have it all figured out.
>
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/18/2008 12:47 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
Thanks I understand your position now. However am I still believe that
it will work and be safe;
1) the Singleton you show would be fully constructed (having exited theSingleton() method) before the createInstance() method would have
returned.
2) The second_reference could not be assigned until the createInstance()
method returns.
3) So by the time second_reference points to Singleton all of the valueswill be set.
>
>
I do understand that if the createInstance method was not synchronized(at the CreationFactory class level) that my logic would be flawed, but
since there is synchronization on that method these points are true, and
your comments about up-to-date values are not accurate.
>
Cheers,
Scott
>In your listing from your latest email T2 does encounter a sync block
on createInstance.
>>>>
No. T2 will call getInstance and see second_reference as non-null.second_reference was made non-null by T1.
>>
>>>>
What are you exactly are you refering to with the phrase 'up-to-datevalues'?
>>>>
Assume my singleton ctor is thus:
public class Singleton
private int i;
private long l;
private String str;
public Singleton()
i = 5;
l = 10;
str = "Hello";
T2 will get a reference to the Singleton object. However, because youaccess second_reference without synchronization it may not see i as 5,
l as 10 and str as "Hello". It may see any of them as 0 or null. This
is not the out of order write problem, but is a general visibility
problem because you are accessing a variable without proper
synchronization.
>>
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/16/2008 11:38 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
In your listing from your latest email T2 does encounter a sync blockon createInstance.
>>
What are you exactly are you refering to with the phrase 'up-to-datevalues'?
In this code the Singleton should also be
A) non mutable (as in the instance of class Object in the example).
If the singleton was more complex then the code to populate it'svalues
would go inside the sync of createInstance().
B) mutable with synchronization on it's mutator methods.
In your article you mention out of order writes, which doesn't occurin
this code.
Cheers,
Scott
You read it wrong.
- T1 calls getInstance which in turn calls createInstance.
- T1 constructs the singleton in createInstance and returns to
getInstance.
- T1 sets second_reference to the singleton returned in getInstance. -T1 goes about its business.
- T2 calls createInstance.
- T2 sees second_reference as non-null and returns it
- Since T2 accessed second_reference without sync, there is noguarantee
that T2 will see the up-to-date values for what this object refers to.
- Therefore the code is not guaranteed to work.
>>>
If this is not clear:
- Re-read my email below
- Re-read my article
- If still not clear, google on Double Checked Locking and readanything
from Brian Goetz or Bill Pugh.
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/13/2008 05:26 AM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply, I don't see how T2 would see the a referenceto
a
partialy initialized object before the createInstance() method had
returned. If T1 was in createInstance() when T2 entered
getInstance(), T2 would wait on the CreationFactory's class monitor to
wait to enter createInstance().
Or in other words in the line of code ....
second_reference = CreationFactory.createInstance();
The pointer second_reference couldn't be assigned to the singleton
instance when the synchronized createInstance() had fully constructed,initialized and returned the singleton instance. Before that the the
second_reference pointer would always be assigned to null. So any
thread entering getInstance() before createInstance() had returned
(for the first time) would wait on the CreationFactory's class monitor
and enter the createInstance() method.
>>>
So T2 will wait for T1.
Cheers,
Scott
PS I think I am writing requirements for my next project :)
Sorry for the delay...been in all day meetings this week.
You are correct...I had been reading your code wrong, my apologies.
My explanations, although correct, did not exactly correspond to your
code.
However, the code is still not guaranteed to work. Here's why:
Assume T1 calls getInstance() which calls createInstance() and returnsthe
singelton. It then sets second_reference to refer to that singleton.
So
far, so good. Now, T2 executes and calls getInstance(). It can see
second_reference as non-null, so it simply returns it. But, there
was
no
synchronization in T2's code path. So there's no guarantee that even
if
T2 sees an up-to-date value for the reference, that it will seeup-to-date
values for anything else, ie what the object refers to...it's
instance data. If T2 used synchronization, it would ensure that it
read
up-to-date
values when it obtained the lock. Because it didn't, it could see
stale
values for the object's fields, which means it could see a partially
constructed object.
>>>>
In the typical double-checked locking, the mistake is to assume theworst
case is that two threads could race to initialize the object. But
the worst case is actually far worse -- that a thread uses an object
which
it
believes to be "fully baked" but which is in fact not.
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/03/2008 06:33 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
Thanks for responding, I am still thinking that your mis
interpreting
the code so I have rewritten it here (Replacing
DoubleFactory.instance with DoubleFactory.second_reference for
clarity). If the T1 burps (gets interrupted) in the createInstance
method it wouldn't have returned so the second_reference pointer
would have never been
assigned
so T2 would just try again upon entering the getInstance method. Orif
it had already entered getInstance it would be waiting to enter
(until T1 releases the lock on CreationFactory.class ) on the
createInstance method.
>>>>
public class DoubleFactory {
private static Object second_reference = null;
public static Object getInstance() {
Object toRet = second_reference;
if (toRet == null) {
second_reference =
CreationFactory.createInstance();
toRet = second_reference;
return toRet;
private DoubleFactory() {}
public class CreationFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static synchronized Object createInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Object();
return instance;
Does this clear up my idea at all?
second_reference should be always pointing to
null
or
a fully initialized Object
(also referenced by the pointer named 'instance' ), I don't see howit would end up partially initialized.
>>>>
Thanks Again,
Scott
"It" refers to T2.
Your createInstance method is identical to my Listing 2 and is fine
and
will work.
Yes, the problem with your code is in getInstance.
>I don't see how the DoubleFactory getInstance method could bereturning
a partially initialized object at this point. If CreationFactoryalways
returns a fully initialized object and DoubleFactory only assigns a
new
reference/pointer to it how could DoubleFactory getInstance return a
reference/pointer to partially initialized object?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
The reason it is not guaranteed to work is explained in my previousemails
and in detail in the article. However, I'll try again. Anytime you
access shared variables from multiple threads without proper
synchronization, your code is not guaranteed to work. Threads are
allowed
to keep private working memory separate from main memory. There are
2
distinct points where private working memory is reconciled with main
memory:
- When using a synchronized method or block - on acquisition of thelock
and when it is released.
- If the variable is declared volatile - on each read or write of
that
volatile variable. (Note, this was broken in pre 1.5 JVMs which isthe
reason for the caveat I previously mentioned)
Your createInstance method uses synchronization, therefore, the
reconciliation happens on lock acquisition and lock release. T1 can
acquire the lock in createInstance, make some updates (ie create an
object, run it's ctor etc), but then get interrupted before exiting
createInstance and therefore before releasing the lock. Therefore,
T1
has
not released the lock and reconciled its private working memory withmain
memory. Therefore, you have ZERO guarantee about the state of mainmemory
from another threads perspective. Now, T2 comes along and accesses
"instance" from main memory in your getInstance method. What will
T2
see?
Since it is not properly synchronized, you cannot guarantee that T2sees
the values that T1 is working with since T1 may not have completely
flushed its private working memory back to main memory. Maybe it
did completely flush it, maybe it didn't. Since T1 still hold the
lock,
you
cannot guarantee what has transpired. Maybe your JVM is not usingprivate
working memory. However, maybe the JVM your code runs on does or
will
some day.
Bottom line: Your code is not properly synchronized and is notguaranteed
to work. I hope this helps.
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/03/2008 12:49 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response, I don't follow what 'it' refers to in
the
phrase 'It can see'. So for the same reason that you state that
example 2 from your article I believe this class CreationFactory to
work flawlessly when a client object calls the createInstance
method.
>>>>>
I see this CreationFactory code as identical to your example 2 doyou agree with this?
>>>>>
public class CreationFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static synchronized Object createInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Object();
return instance;
}Then my rational in the DoubleFactory class is that it can obtain a
reference/pointer to the fully initialized object returned bycalling the above code. I believe you think that the problem with
my code is
in
the DoubleFactorys getInstance method, is this correct?
I don't see how the DoubleFactory getInstance method could bereturning
a partially initialized object at this point. If CreationFactory
always
returns a fully initialized object and DoubleFactory only assigns a
new
reference/pointer to it how could DoubleFactory getInstance return a
reference/pointer to partially initialized object?
>>>>>
Thanks again,
Scott
public static synchronized Singleton getInstance() //0
if (instance == null) //1
instance = new Singleton(); //2
return instance; //3
This above code is fine and will work flawlessly.
Annotating my paragraph:
T1 calls getInstance() and obtains the class lock at //0. T1 "sees"
instance as null at //1 and therefore executes: instance = new
Singleton() at //2. Now, instance = new Singleton() is made up of
several lines of non-atomic code. Therefore, T1 could be
interrupted
after Singleton is created but before Singleton's ctor isrun...somewhere
before all of //2 completes. T1 could also be interrupted after
//2 completes, but before exiting the method at //3. Since T1 has
not
exited
its synchronized block it has not flushed its cache. Now assume T2
then
calls getInstance().
All still true to this point. However, with your code the nextparagraph
is possible, with the code above, it's not. The reason is that T2
would
never enter getInstance() above at //0 because T1 holds the lock. T2will
block until T1 exits and flushes it's cache. Therefore, the code
above
is
properly thread safe.
It can "see" instance to be non-null and thus
return it. It will return a valid object, but one in which its ctor
has
not yet run or an object whose
values have not all been fully flushed since T1 has not exited itssync
block.
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/02/2008 06:10 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the response I understand the rational for inventing
the
double check anti pattern, I am sorry I still don't understand the
difference between your solution #2 and my CreationFactory class.
>>>>>>
From your article figure 2.public static synchronized Singleton getInstance() //0
if (instance == null) //1
instance = new Singleton(); //2
return instance; //3
If I understand your email correctly this figure 2 is also flawed,since...
>>>>>>
T1 calls getInstance() and obtains the class lock at //0. T1 "sees"
instance as null at //1 and therefore executes: instance = new
Singleton() at //2. Now, instance = new Singleton() is made up ofseveral lines of non-atomic code. Therefore, T1 could be
interrupted
after Singleton is created but before Singleton's ctor isrun...somewhere
before all of //2 completes. T1 could also be interrupted after
//2 completes, but before exiting the method at //3. Since T1 has
not
exited
its synchronized block it has not flushed its cache. Now assume T2
then
calls getInstance(). It can "see" instance to be non-null and thus
return it. It will return a valid object, but one in which its
ctor
has
not yet run or an object whose
values have not all been fully flushed since T1 has not exited itssync
block.
So is #2 is also flawed for this reason?
If so please revise your article, since I interpreted #2 as a
plausible
solution recommended by you (which lead me to the DoubleFactory
idea).
If not please help me understand the difference between #2 and my
CreationFactory class.
>>>>>>
Thanks,
Scott
#2 is in Listing 2 in the article. What I meant was to forget the
DCL
idiom, and just synchronize the method...that's what listing 2
shows.
DCL
was invented to attempt to get rid of the synchronization for 99.9%
of
the
accesses.
The solution I outlined in my email is using the DCL idiom, but on
a
1.5
or later JVM and using volatile.
You solution is not guaranteed to work. Here's why:
public class DoubleFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static Object getInstance() {
Object toRet = instance;
if (toRet == null) {
instance =
CreationFactory.createInstance();
toRet = instance;
return toRet;
private DoubleFactory() {}
public class CreationFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static synchronized ObjectcreateInstance()
//1
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Object(); //2
return instance;
} //3
}T1 calls createInstance() and obtains the class lock at //1. T1"sees"
instance as null and therefore executes: instance = new Object() at//2.
Now, instance = new Object() is made up of several lines of
non-atomic
code. Therefore, T1 could be interrupted after Object is created
but
before Object's ctor is run...somewhere before all of //2
completes.
T1
could also be interrupted after //2 completes, but before exiting
the
method at //3. Since T1 has not exited its synchronized block ithas
not
flushed its cache. Now assume T2 then calls getInstance(). It can"see"
instance to be non-null and thus return it. It will return a
valid object, but one in which its ctor has not yet run or an
object
whose
values have not all been fully flushed since T1 has not exited itssync
block.
The bottom line is that if you are accessing shared variables
between
multiple threads without proper protection, you are open for aproblem.
Proper protection is defined as: proper synchronization pre 1.5,
and
proper synchronization or proper use of volatile 1.5 or after.
Therefore, if you must use the DCL idiom you have one option: -
Use DCL with volatile on a 1.5 or later JVM.
>>>>>>>
You can also forget about DCL and just use synchronization (listing2
in
my article) or use a static field (listing 10 in my article).
I hope this clears it up.
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
01/02/2008 04:00 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
I apologies for not understanding but I don't see what is
different
between the solution you purposed...
2) Don't use DCL but use synchronization
and the code that I am putting forward. Perhaps I do just notunderstand
but you seem to be contradicting yourself in this email?
I understand that you are saying in #2 that this will always 'work'
with
out any issues...
public static Object instance = null;
public static synchronized Object getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Object();
return instance;
But first you seem to say in the email that if T1 gets
interrupted
it
may leave the instance pointing to a partially initialized object?
So as far as I understand it the createInstance method in my
CreationFactory class should be successful (always retuning a
fully initialized object) for the same reason #2 is successful.
Please keep in mind that there are two different instancepointers
in
the code I sent you, one is part of the DoubleFactory class and
the other is part of the CreationFactory class.
>>>>>>>
Thanks for your time, just looking for better solutions!
Scott
Scott,
Your solution is not guaranteed to work for various reasons
outlined
in
the article. For example, you can still return from your code apartially
initialized object. This can occur if T1 gets interrupted beforeleaving
the synchronized method createInstance() and T2 calls
getInstance().
T2
can "see" toRet/instance as non-null but partially initialized
since
T1
has not fully flushed its values.
As of 1.5, Sun fixed various issues with the memory model that
were
broken. Double Checked Locking will still break unless you usevolatile
(which was fixed in 1.5). Therefore, the following code works:
volatile Helper helper;
Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null)
synchronized(this) {
if (helper == null)
helper = new Helper();
return helper;
but the original DCL idiom will not work. So, your options are:
1) Use DCL with volatile (above)
2) Don't use DCL but use synchronization
3) Don't use DCL, but use a static field.
#2 and #3 are outlined in my article from 2002.
Hope this helps,
Peter
"Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
12/26/2007 04:12 PM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
Peter Haggar/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
[Fwd: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2]
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the article on the out of order write problem. Whatdo
you
think of this as a solution?
TIA,
Scott
---------------------------- Original Message----------------------------
Subject: Double Factory replacement for Double Check #2
From: "Scott Morgan" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, December 26, 2007 2:55 pm
To: [email protected]
Hi Ward,
Here is a pattern submission
Double Factory
Lazy initialization of singletons in accepted for a while usingthe
double check pattern. However it has been discovered that the
double
check pattern isn't thread safe because of the out of order write
problem. This problem occurs when Threads entering the Singleton
Factory method return with a fully constructed, but partially
initialized, Singleton object.
>>>>>>>>
Therefore: It makes sense to look for a way to initializeSingletons
in
a Lazy and Thread Safe manor. The following illustrates a fairly
simple
solution...
package foo;
public class DoubleFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static Object getInstance() {
Object toRet = instance;
if (toRet == null) {
instance =
CreationFactory.createInstance();
toRet = instance;
return toRet;
private DoubleFactory() {}
public class CreationFactory {
private static Object instance = null;
public static synchronized ObjectcreateInstance()
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Object();
return instance;
This gets around the out of order write problem because all
Threads
waiting on the CreationFactory's Class monitor will have a fully
constructed and initialized instance when they actually exit the
createInstance method.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
During runtime while the Singleton instance is getting created(constructed and initialized) there may be a few Threads waiting
on
the
CreationFactory Class's objects monitor. After that period all
the
Treads
accessing
the Singleton will have unsynchronized reads to the instance,
which
will
optimize execution.
References:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-dcl.html
Copyright 2007 Adligo Inc.Scott-Morgan wrote:
Hi All,
Thanks for your comments, here are some more....
jtahlborn you state that
the only way to guarantee that a (non-final) reference assignment is visible across threads is through the use of volatile and synchronized,
From the jvm spec
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/memory.html
17.4.1 Shared Variables
Memory that can be shared between threads is called shared memory or heap memory.
All instance fields, static fields and array elements are stored in heap memory.
Since both the second_reference and instance fields are both static, they are shared and visible across all threads.Yes, all these things are shared across threads, however, if you keep reading, there is a notion of "correct" sharing. obviously these values may be visible, that's why double-checked locking was used for so long before people realized it was broken. it worked most of the time, except when it didn't, and that's what i'm trying to show. that the only way to correctly share state between threads is via synchronization points, the most common being volatile and synchronized (there are a couple of other less used ones which don't apply here). The articles you linked to below from ibm cover the "visibility" in great depth, this is exactly what i am referring to.
You also state that volatile is a solution, but you seem to rebut your self in stating that the overhead for volatile is almost as great as synchronization.
This article illustrates the solution, and also comments on the overhead of volatile.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp03304/
linked from
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-dcl.html
volatile is a solution, in that it is correct, and you avoid the appearance of synchronization each time. however, since the semantics of volatile were strengthened in the new memory model, using volatile will perform practically (if not exactly) the same as simply synchronizing each time. the article you link to says exactly this under the heading "Does this fix the double-checked locking problem?".
Also could you be more specific about the example at the end of the jvm memory spec page, like a section number?It's the very last thing on the page, the "discussion" under 17.9, where it mentions that changes to "this.done" made by other threads may never be visible to the current thread. -
I am changing laptops and have tried to download and install Acrobat 9 Standard from the Adobe website, but get message that my serial number is invalid. I log in and double check my account and it shows as a valid serial number. Now what?
If you had it on a laptop that crashed and you threw away, it is still considered as activated on that machine. YOu should contact Adobe by chat or by phone and have them deactivate for you.
Here is a link to a page with options to help make contact:
http://www.adobe.com/support/download-install/supportinfo/
If you are getting a message that indicates the serial number is not valid, you should look thru the following:
Error "The serial number is not valid for this product" | Creative Suite
http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/error-serial-number-valid-product.html -
I have just bought four songs from iTunes store using my iMac. I can play the music on my iMac and throughout my Apple TV. However after several restarts and double checks I can't get the four tunes to sync with either my iPhone or my iPad. All the software is up to date.
do you use the same Apple ID on your iMac, your iPhone and iPad? This is a requirement.
-
I am suddenly having a problem printing 4x6 photos. The print as though starting in the middle of an 8x10 sheet. I've checked and double-checked the print settings. Anyone else have this problem?
jsavage9621,
It pains me to hear about your experience with the Home Phone Connect. This device usually works seamlessly and is a great alternative to a landline phone. It sounds like we've done our fair share of work on your account here. I'm going to go ahead and send you a Private Message so that we can access your account and review any open tickets for you. I look forward to speaking with you.
TrevorC_VZW
Follow us on Twitter @VZWSupport -
I did a backup from all my files saved in old external hd to time capsule. After that double checked and recover one file from TC to mac air and it worked just perfect. Today went through TC to recover another file and none of them were there?Anybody has a clue what happened?
renatocremonese wrote:
I want to use it for backing up my Mac.
It's good for that . . .
But also I don't keep all my stuff in my Mac.
But not for that.
This older and not day-by-day usage files I want to store in the time machine.
You can do that (see below), but how are you going to back them up? If your only copies are on the TC, when (not if) it fails, you risk losing your only copy of the data.
Is it possible to split TC in two partitions.
No, but there are some workarounds, including making a fixed-size disk image on it to "reserve" some space. See #Q3 in Using Time Machine with a Time Capsule.
But you still won't have backups of the stuff you put there.
You don't say what kind of Mac you have. If it's a desktop model, just keep the external HD connected to it, and let Time Machine back it up along with your internal HD.
However, it sounds like you may have a laptop, where that's not going to be convenient. In that case, your best bet might be to copy the external HD to a disk image on the TC as above, then keep the HD in a safe place.
To finish, when i enter the TC and go through the Time line how can I get a file from there and move it back to Mac hd.
Via the "Star Wars" display, per #15 in Time Machine - Frequently Asked Questions.
You might also want to review the Time Machine Tutorial, and perhaps browse the rest of the FAQ. -
Hi experts,
I wanted to know if there is any BAPI that I can use to check if a FI invoice can be posted without errors. Payment blocks are fine.
I will be having all the data in my internal tables and workareas and need to check if that data can be used to actually post the document.
Note: i do not intend to park the document at any stage.
Thanks,
Prabhas.Hi Dude,
BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_CHECK Accounting: Check invoice receipt
Functionality : Data resulting from invoice receipts in a Logistics system can be transferred to Accounting. You can use the Check method to see whether an invoice receipt can be posted in Accounting.
Pattern:
CALL FUNCTION 'BAPI_ACC_INVOICE_RECEIPT_CHECK'
EXPORTING
DOCUMENTHEADER =
" CUSTOMERCPD =
TABLES
ACCOUNTPAYABLE =
ACCOUNTGL =
ACCOUNTTAX =
" CURRENCYAMOUNT =
" PURCHASEORDER =
" PURCHASEAMOUNT =
RETURN =
" CRITERIA =
" VALUEFIELD =
" EXTENSION1 = -
i have even double checked the album and the album has the EDITED pic but for some reason when uploaded or sent the original is what goes thru... makes me very irritated! not sure if its a setting or some bug... any suggestions???
I think it depends on how you share it. Sometimes when I email it to myself it retains the edits, but I read that when people sync their phone it sometimes does not.
-
Hey everyone,
I posted a blog entry using Double-Checked Locking. Later one, Ryan commented to me that DCL does not work. See
http://jroller.com/page/davinci/?anchor=lazy_initialization_with_less_pain
I never knew that. Anyway, in a small efford to fix this I came up with the following code. Now one of the articles stated that many clever people already tried to fix the problem, and since I don't think I'm that smart, I guess this code also doesn't work. Can anyone explain to me why the following code could go wrong on some JVM's and platforms?
private class Singeton {
private static Singleton SINGLETON;
private static boolean initialized;
public static Singleton getInstance() {
if (!initialized) {
synchronized (Singleton.class) {
if (SINLETON == null) {
SINGLETON = new Singleton();
initialized = true;
return SINGLETON;
}Thanks,
VincentOkay, this migth seem like a load of... well, you
know, but in this case I force the JVM to initialize
the object before setting the boolean to true, or
not?Did you read the link I posted?
"The most obvious reason it doesn't work it that the writes that initialize the Helper object and the write to the helper field can be done or perceived out of order. Thus, a thread which invokes getHelper() could see a non-null reference to a helper object, but see the default values for fields of the helper object, rather than the values set in the constructor.
If the compiler inlines the call to the constructor, then the writes that initialize the object and the write to the helper field can be freely reordered if the compiler can prove that the constructor cannot throw an exception or perform synchronization.
Even if the compiler does not reorder those writes, on a multiprocessor the processor or the memory system may reorder those writes, as perceived by a thread running on another processor. "
Your code still fails. There is no known solution to the problem (if you can't create the singleton during declaration time)
/Kaj -
I'm TRYING to try the 30 free trial of Aperture. It downloads fine, but the promised email with serial number (needed to activate) never arrives. I've double checked email address. Anyone have a solution?
This has been reported numerous times in the past. It seesms that from time-to-time the response system responsible for sending the key goes away.
Take a look at the More Like This box on the right hand side of this page. Some users have had success getting the key sent in various ways. -
I synced my phone and now I can't find my contacts. I wanted to double check that they are on my computer but can't find them. Where can I look?
Where do you get your contacts from?
Do you use Outlook?
Have you made a back up of your iPhone on iTunes/iCloud when the contacts were on it?
Do you use Windows or a Mac? -
A way to make double-checked locking work?
First a little background.
I am writing an application that will run in an websphere/db2 environment. This application needs to provide a lot of referential data to the UI to properly populate certain fields (on the order of several dozen reference data requests per page request with about 3-400 concurrent users). To prevent 20 sql statements for a single user clicking a single link, I implemented a dynamic caching scheme with double-checked locking, not realizing the potential danger.
After reading an article I found on the pitfalls of double-checked locking (http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2001/jw-0209-toolbox.html), I still would like to prevent synchronizing on every cache request. I think I've found a solution that transfers the weight to the write operations, as those would be much less frequent and can therefore take the bigger load. I would like to see if anyone can find a hole in this.
public class DCLTest {
private Resource rec = null;
boolean initializing = false;
public Resource getResource() {
Resource temp = null;
if (rec == null) {
synchronized (this) {
// initializing is now synchronized w/ main memory
if (initializing)
wait();
if (rec == null) {
// resource has lots of non-trivial datamembers that get initialized in the constructor
temp = new Resource();
initializing = true;
// If initializing is true, we know it's set by this thread,
// but still check that temp is valid
if (initializing && (temp != null)) {
synchronized (this) {
rec = temp;
initializing = false;
notifyAll();
}The first synchronize block establishes the first set of boundaries. When it completes, the initializing flag is raised and any other thread waiting to enter that block will see the flag and wait. Also, when the block is executed, all of the resource object's internal fields get written to the main memory, but the "global" pointer will still be null. Once we enter the second synchronized block, we update the global pointer and reset the flag. Since both synchronized blocks synchronize on "this", calling notifyAll won't resume execution of the threads that are waiting until they re-acquire the lock on this, or in other terms, until the second synchronized block completes. By that point the initializing flag will be false, the rec field will be not null and rec's data members will be in sync between all threads trying to access it.
This all depends on the assumption that the optimizer won't combine the two synchronized blocks. If that's the case, the two synchronized blocks assure that the reference to rec is written (and made visible to main memory) after the actual contents of rec are in main memory. Therefore, if a reading thread acquires a non-null value in the check outside the synchronized block, it will acquirea proper value. Otherwise, it'll get a null and will enter the synchronized block and all is well.
This logic seems too good to be true (which unfortunately means it probably is), but I can't find the hole. The only justification my gut can give this is the fact that the write operation becomes slower than if both read and write were synchronized, which is acceptable in my case.a big flaw (but easily solvable) is that there is no
guarentee that changes made to your "initializing"
variable
will ever be seen by other threads. It needs to be
marked volatile.this is not true. the JLS states that all threads are required to load from main memory on the first use of a variable in its lifetime. This would happen the first time a thread checks rec. When that check occurs, it will load from main memory and eihter get a null and enter the sync block, or get a valid reference and continue.
17.3 After a thread is created, it must perform an assign or load action
on a variable before performing a use or store action on that variable.
A second flaw is that you never set rec to anything
other then null.
( a single thread will enter the first synch block and
obtain a reference to temp. It will then NOT enter
the
second synch block as initializing is false. hence
your rec variable will be null)why is initializing false? it's set to true within the first block.
temp = new Resource();
initializing = true;
Third.
rec is null. The first thread enters the first synch
block and stops before changing the initializing
valriable. A
second thread then tries to enter the synch block. It
cannot get the monitor and therefore yeilds. The first
thread then continues inside the synch block. It just
leaves the first synch block before being stopped. The
second thread then resumes. It obtains the lock on the
first sych block. initilaizing is false so it skips
the
wait() statment. Rec is still null so the second
thread creates a new one. Now you have two threads
each has
a local reference to different Resource's. Which one
gets used? (actually at the moment niether would
get used cos of the previous problem)the whole idea of initializing is that it never gets written outside of a synchronized block. if a thread cuts in just as the first thread left the first sync block, initializing is set to true, so it will simply wait. This is to make sure that no one does anything while the thread that's initializing is in between the two sync blocks.
i think you overlooked where initializing is set to true in the first block -
Error 0x00000709 operation could not be compleated Double check the printer name etc.
After installing my new printer and removing all other printers from my computer I now can not make the only printer listed as my default printer. I get this error 0X00000709 operation could not be completed Double check the printer name and make sure it is connected. I have done all that over and over again. I also I have reinstalled the old printer software and tried to default to my new printer at that time and still the same error. I have checked my register and it has the old printer listed but does not allow me to change it. I now have removed all but the new printer from my computer but I still can not make it my default printer. Programs such as Adobe only recognizes the default printer (which is not there any more) and don't even list the new printer as an option. The printer works just fine accept with the programs that uses the default printer. The Windows Hardware and Device Troubleshooting finds the problem (printer not set as default)but can not fix it.
I sure wish someone out there could help me get rid of the error and allow me to default my printer again. I have noticed other people have had this same issue with error 0X00000709 using other Windows versions as well. I have been trying to resolve this issue for the past three months and would appreciate any and all ideas.
I have an HP Pavilion elite HPE 337C computer running with Window 7 and I installed my new HP LaserJet PRO CM1415fnw color MFP printer. My old printer that I removed (but is still listed in my Regester) was an HP 6500 inkJet.After doing some research on the net:
This link provided an answer:
https://exploreb2b.com/articles/solving-error-0x00000709-cant-set-default-printer-problem
Regedit -> HKEY_CURRENT_USER -> Software->Microsoft->Windows NT->Current Version->Windows
One of the entries you should see in the right hand pane is“Device”. If the value for “Device” as noted under the “Data” area is anything other than the printer you are using, then highlight “Device” in the right hand pane with the mouse and press the delete key to remove it. (I edited it and put the name of the printer I wanted to be the default)
VI. Restart the computer so it starts with the altered Windows system registry. (Italics mine)
Maybe you are looking for
-
Google Tasks in Safari 5-can't add date
Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Works fine in other browsers.
-
How is it possible that when I do have a Wifi connection, I cannot connect to Safari or Google Chrome or anything else internet-related? Sometimes it does all work, but after a while Wifi is still there and I am not able to go to any website whatsoev
-
Adding message types to ME21N,Me22N ?
Hi all, I am creating SO from PO using ALE-IDoc . though i am successfully creating the SO . i have one problem. i am creating the SO through Message type NEU , but also i have to generate the print out of the PO simultaneously. To this i am using me
-
In LiveCycle Designer ES2, how do I post data to a url to verfiy it? For example, if I wanted to vaildate a username but not submit the whole form?
-
Is it possible to combine graph ?
Hi all, I've been looking for a way to combine two types of graph, for example, combining a bar graph and a line graph. The use case is that the bar graph shows ratio to report data, and we'd like the line bar to show a trend. Is a such thing possibi