Sorry, it took me so long to respond. I didn't notice your request.

Attributes = Instrument, Notify Lead Tech

Options Instrument = Olympus, Beckman

Options Notify Lead Tech = Yes{a}, No {b}

{a}Email Instrument Olympus = John@lab.net         (i.e. if it is "Yes" and  "Olympus" - John gets an email)

{a}Email Instrument Beckman = Mary@lab.net         (i.e. if it is "Yes" and  "Beckman" - Mary gets an email)

(For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)

I like this new feature, BUT

I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.

System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
this is made up)

Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista

where the natural order here is chronological.

Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example

Sort attribute Options Status = 1

which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

I've just noticed that it has also sorted another Option, which are selected as radio buttons.  Again, this is a
list which has a natural - again, in this case, chronological - order.

Because of this, I'm going to have to turn off this feature as it is on my system.  I hope something can be sorted
on this.


> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to

Sort Attribute Options Status = 1

as you suggested.

> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Thanks Stefan!  Works great.

> Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> 
> Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> as you suggested.
> 
> > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > 
> > I like this new feature, BUT
> > 
> > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > 
> > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > this is made up)
> > 
> > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > 
> > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > 
> > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > 
> > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Yes, many thanks, Stefan, from me, too! It's really great that you respond so quickly to requests and suggestions.

And thanks to David for the fine tuning, great suggestion.

Dennis

> Thanks Stefan!  Works great.
> 
> > Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> > 
> > Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > as you suggested.
> > 
> > > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > > 
> > > I like this new feature, BUT
> > > 
> > > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > > 
> > > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > > this is made up)
> > > 
> > > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > > 
> > > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > > 
> > > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > > 
> > > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

> Hello.
> 
> Please look at the entry 66525 of this forum (just 5 thread before this one):
> 
>  ->  chain.crt, posted by Gerhard Schneider on Thu Sep 3 21:55:52 2009         (66525)
>   |->    Re: chain.crt, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Sep 4 08:33:16 2009       (66526)
>   |->    Re: chain.crt, posted by Gerhard Schneider on Wed Oct 7 07:56:52 2009 (66556)
> 
> When you collapse the thread, it is collapsed to the 66526 instead of the 66556 (more recent)
> 
>   +      Re: chain.crt, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Sep 4 08:33:16 2009  
> 
> I guess it is because both 66526 and 66556 replies to the first entry. 
> I have the same problem with Elog v2.7.7-2246 and Windows. 
> 
> In general, it seems to work well only if you always reply to the last entry of a thread.
> 
>   Thank you.
> 
> 
> b.t.w. : is there any tip to always force reply to the last entry of a thread?

As the person who suggested this concept, I have to admit I've yet to think of a good way around this issue. 
Preventing "branching" is all very well, but sometimes it is relivent to have a branch (although I usually try to
avoid them).  Unless elog scans every possible branch to find where the latest entry, I cannot think of a
foolproof, practical scheme.

Hi Stefan,

After 21.Oct, all the emails sent out by this discussion form now are addressed to

ELOG@ananke.jtan.com
the name of the server my mails are sent to.

Before that the emails were addressed to 

ELOG@emix.psi.ch

Obviouisly my real email address is there, in the headers (as it would appear for a BCC)

The only consequence for me was these emails turned up in the wrong mailbox, but perhaps it has wider implications?