IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New How active? Context?
Are we saying that changing the control immediately updates the database? Are updates to the database immediately available in the control?

If that is what you want, I've only done that with Access which is definitely a Bad Idea.

Otherwise I have no problem with what you describe in a form based submission. This checkbox maps to a flag, that dropdown maps to an internal field. This is a natural design mapping. It is simple and works well.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Re: How active? Context?
If that is what you want, I've only done that with Access which is definitely a Bad Idea.
That's the question, then. Why is it a bad idea?
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Are you really asking why Access is a bad idea?
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Whoops.
Thought you were just saying that bound controls were a bad idea, not just Access.

I'm not interested in the individual tools so much as the actual technique itself.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Discussion topic: data-aware controls on forms - (admin) - (31)
         How active? Context? - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Re: How active? Context? - (admin) - (2)
                 Are you really asking why Access is a bad idea? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     Whoops. - (admin)
         Bad idea. - (mmoffitt) - (18)
             Implementation vs effect - (ben_tilly) - (17)
                 Consider what goes on in most such setups. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                     Don't be sure about the surely - (ben_tilly) - (11)
                         Re: Don't be sure about the surely - (admin) - (4)
                             That I agree with - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                 Why more? - (admin) - (2)
                                     Duplication of information - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                         Must depend on what you're doing. - (admin)
                         I can't add much to what Scott said. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                             Then see my response to Scott - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                 I did. And how? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                     Ah, good point - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                         Problem is rollback - (drewk) - (1)
                                             That's only an argument for a wrapper - (ben_tilly)
                 Er, what headaches? - (admin) - (3)
                     Depends how you're set up - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                         Re: Depends how you're set up - (admin) - (1)
                             More moving parts - (ben_tilly)
         always thought that all forms should be a view of the table - (boxley)
         Depends on the kind of data - (ChrisR) - (2)
             Mostly agree - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                 Love 'impedance mismatch' ! - (Ashton)
         You didn't specify stateful or stateless system - (drewk) - (2)
             Stateful. - (admin) - (1)
                 Then the issue is multi-column constraints - (drewk)
         Neat idea, but marginal in practice - (JayMehaffey)

What a feat!
113 ms