Profile Validation and Timeouts – Revisited

Back in September, I wrote a post which had some SQL to provide a list of Workflow timeout values which can be used in profile option values.

The code sample below was something that Gary Derrick put together which does a similar task, albeit more simplified than the version I produced in the original post:

SQL="SELECT a.meaning,
INTO :visible_option_value,
(SELECT DECODE(LEVEL - 1,0,'No Timeout'
    ||' Minute'
    ||DECODE(LEVEL - 1,1,'','s')
, DECODE(LEAST(LEVEL - 1,1439),LEVEL - 1,TO_CHAR((LEVEL - 1)/60)
    ||' Hour'
, TO_CHAR((LEVEL-1)/1440)
    ||' Day'
    ||DECODE(LEVEL - 1,1440,'','s')))) meaning
, LEVEL - 1 v
FROM dual
) a
WHERE a.v IN (0, 1,2, 60, 120, 1440, 2880)"

The code generates a list of values based on the number of minutes you specify in the WHERE clause.  In this example, the list of values would be no timeout (0), 1 Minute(1), 2 Minutes (2), 1 Hour (60), 2 Hours (120), 1 Day (1440), 2 Days (2880) – if you want different values, then change the number of minutes to include in the query.

The value of the profile option can then be retrieved directly by the Workflow process without any need to manipulate it – it’s ready to use in the code, but is also human-friendly in terms of what the LOV displays.

Hope you find it useful – thanks Gary!

Different Software Licencing Methods

Just a quick post on the different ways that I’ve seen software companies delivering their software to the client.

In an ideal world, there are two main ways to do this.  Quite often, a company might choose to sell the software that they produce for a client, delivering a (hopefully!) working application and the source code.  Typically in this scenario, there is no major reason for the company to retain any rights to the code they wrote for the client, because the software has been customised to such an extent that it is only useful for one client.

In some other situations, though, companies might choose to license the software to the client.  The company retains all ownership of the software, and they might provide regular bug updates and patches in exchange for a licence fee.

The third example, which I have unfortunately seen in a number of places over the years, sort of merges these two models together.  The client pays for the source code, receives a “working” application and the code, but it is written in such a poor manner that if anyone other than the original developer worked on it, they would rapidly go insane!

Sadly, I’ve seen that third model occur more often than I would like to!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

In common with almost all professionally run websites, this website logs the IP address of each visitor in order to keep it running reliably. This is also essential for protecting the website and its visitors from malicious attacks, including infection with malware.

This website provides information as a service to visitors such as yourself, and to do this reliably and efficiently, it sometimes places small amounts of information on your computer or device (e.g. mobile phone). This includes small files known as cookies. The cookies stored by this website cannot be used to identify you personally.

We use cookies to understand what pages and information visitors find useful, and to detect problems such as broken links, or pages which are taking a long time to load.

We sometimes use cookies to remember a choice you make on one page, when you have moved to another page if that information can be used to make the website work better. For example:
- avoiding the need to ask for the same information several times during a session (e.g. when filling in forms), or
- remembering that you have logged in, so that you don’t have to re-enter your username and password on every page.

You can prevent the setting of cookies by adjusting the settings on your browser (see your browser Help for how to do this). Be aware that disabling cookies will affect the functionality of this and many other websites that you visit.