I will put this on the wish list. 

I limited this to 100 entries because it will be hard to handle it. Imagine a drop-down list box with 5000 entries. It would fill your complete screen and you still won't see all 5000 entries. In that case it might be better to use a free text field and enter the attribute value as free text.

You can increase MAX_N_LIST in elogd.c, but at some point you will get a stack overflow and elogd will just crash.

- Stefan

You can export to CSV (comma-separated-values) if you go to "Find" and then click on "Export: CSV". These fiels you ran read right into Excel or other spreadsheet programs for further analysis. 

Hello Stefan.

Currently this is defined as a maximum of 100 literals in the cfg file. I would like to see the option to reference an external text file as input for this. 

As a side question, I would also like to increase the max to a greater value, for example, even 5000. I assume I can change the source (I recall var was something like "List_Option_Max") and see if that would still work, but would you know offhand if that would cause a problem anywhere else?

Regards,

Alan

(PS: Just getting started with ELog. Please excuse if these questions sound newbie. I also searched the Forum first but haven't found any answers to them yet.)

We are exploring whether it's possible/feasible to import ELog logbooks into a another database for special purposes (plotting/statisical, etc). Target database is TBD (perhaps Access).

Does anyone have or know of a logbook parser program? From cut/pasting into, for example, Excel, it does appear that the data fields are already line-feed delimited so offhand it would seem possible to parse if one really wanted to pursue it.

Regards,

- Alan

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.

(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, I implemented

Sort attribute options = 1

in the current SVN revision. 

 Yes, I have been manually sorting and resorting. We have extendable attributes and the list keeps growing so I have to resort every so often. I thought perhaps a simple alphanumeric sort as an option would be popular with most users so I thought I'd ask for it. It would really simplify things for me. Users who want to sort manually could do so by disabling the option. It never hurts to ask!