Ed,

> > Certainly this would be better, although I am still thinking
> > this is application specific, indeed I think it is probably
> > function specific, rather than embedded specific.
>
> "I am still thinking". Huh? Did you even bother to try the demo before
> you started saying what you thought?
>
> > My logic is that most applications use a generator to generate
> > unique keys for database records. When used this way it does
> > not matter if the generator is not saved when the application
> > crashes because the transaction will be rolled back anyway and
> > so it's use of the generator has no consequence.
>
> Wrong. My users are seeing problems where the generator has the wrong
> value. I would not waste Jason's time if it were an academic issue. Is
> is much more than that. It is a real issue seriously affecting the
> quality of my software.

I don't think Geoff denies the validity of your issue. He was simply chiming
in with how this issue would impact the logic of his applications.

Geoff is just trying to help me work my way through addressing your issue
without creating other undesirable consequences. I highly value Geoff's
thinking on any matter as he has been very helpful in times past. Some of my
worst blunders have been when I didn't give full respect to his wise advice.
And, just recently, he helped me to stay with this issue longer to put the
effort into it so that I didn't negatively impact others.

My job is to do everything I can to make things work in such a way that
everyone's interests are fulfilled as much as possible. I hope you will
please be mindful of that as we continue to work on things.

I believe I have it to where you should be able to have the crash proof
generators and Geoff can have his application work the way it always has
without the added inefficiency in order to be crash proof.

Regards,
Jason