on 31-01-2004 15:29, Ruslan Zasukhin at sunshine At public .DOT kherson.ua wrote:
>
>> editable multi-table cursors,
>> Vale should know which BO & recid a cursor field belongs and allow for
>> editing then all occurrences of that record field in the cursor would be
> updated
>
> No, Erne. Problem not that Valentina did not know.
> Problem in ambiguity.
>
> I not agree that this is good idea update all values in cursor.
>
why not? after all that's just what that change implies
and the very meaning of relational model
if I must implement this on my own, that's what I'll need to do,
right now Vale does this automatically since changes are dinamically seen in
all living cursors - but this will no more be true if we going to have tmp
for cursors
ok... this all falls back to old discussion
if we can keep cursors as the cool data storage commodity also in a
multi-user environment
or we must change our way and use them solely as data retriaval tool, store
their values somewhere and release them ASAP
this can be time & memory consuming and dangerous as well because
how will my app know that data I'm viewing have been changed by other apps?
will we have some DataChangedNotification event?
If yse where, in the VDatabase object, in the VBAseObject object, in the
VCursor object?
And what about implementations of Vale that don't handle events?
I think I'm making too much confusion here,
what I really mean is that would be nice if most if not all these issues
would be handled by Valentina at a kernel level with a standard transaction
model
Cool Runnings,
Erne.
--
| e r | Ernesto Giannotta
| n e | Musical Box - a media store
_______________________________________________
Valentina mailing list
Valentina@lists.macserve.net
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
©2004 erne |
