I am writing my first app which interfaces with a third party SQL database.
I need to validate certain fields to make sure that the data entered in the VFP App exists in the related SQL tables. For example; a Customer ID entered for an invoice exists in the SQL Customer Master file.
The way I have been verifying the fields has been to to create a Parameterized View for that field and then Requerying it, and making sure that the data contained in the View equals what was entered in the field.
I would prefer to do this at the Database level, so that I don't have to maintain the App, just the database.
How would I do this ?
TIA
Mark
In eBizObj.Save() it says that "Strange things happen when leaving these [VFP transaction statements] in when using local views. This is a VFP bug that will be fixed in a future version."
Is this still true? What version is the latest that still has the bug?
Thanks
<I><FONT COLOR="#663300">In eBizObj.Save() it says that "Strange things happen when leaving these [VFP transaction statements] in when using local views. This is a VFP bug that will be fixed in a future version."
Is this still true? What version is the latest that still has the bug?
Thanks</FONT></I>
Hi Cheryl,
You can now use transaction as long as you have eBizObj version 2.0.5 or later, at least with VFP5.
Javed
<I><FONT COLOR="#663300">In eBizObj.Save() it says that "Strange things happen when leaving these [VFP transaction statements] in when using local views. This is a VFP bug that will be fixed in a future version."
Is this still true? What version is the latest that still has the bug?</FONT></I>
VFP 5 fixed the bug. I modified eBizObj at that time to add a new property called <B>lUseVFPTransactions</B>: if you set that to .T., the Save() will be wrapped in a transaction.
The quote you mention was in the original cBizobj class, and I simply left it in there. I added my comments about transactions right after that.
<font color="#cc0000"> ___/
/
__/
/
____/</font>
Ed Leafe
Hello Everyone,
I develop/maintain a large app written in FPW2.6 using the Codebook 2.6 framework. I want to try to create a VFP Codebook based application using live, current 2.6 tables (in VFP views) that are simultaneously used by the 2.6 application. This means that the VFP Codebook would need to use the Cdbk2.6 "NetID()" function to generate the cID key values expected by the 2.6 system.
I wish to develop a VFP Codebook application based on the live 2.6 data where any new records, updates and deletions can be read by the 2.6 system as though the changes had been made by the 2.6 application. The 2.6 system will take an age to re-write and I want to attempt to add some new functionality using VFP Codebook. Obviously the data, will be sent back to the 2.6 system.
CT raised the possibility of a problem with the VFP Refresh() function. I loaded a simple 2.6 table in a VFP view. The table had a cID C(9) field and a cTest C(10) field. The cID field was idexed in 2.6. I was able to create/update records in VFP which were sent back to the 2.6 table. I also called the VFP Refresh() function which did not complain so long as there were unique values in the 2.6 table's cID field (acting as the primary key).
Has anyone done anything similar? Is there anything that may stop this requirement happening? Any comments very much appreciated.
Best
Gary
<<I develop/maintain a large app written in FPW2.6 using the Codebook 2.6 framework. I want to try to create a VFP Codebook based application using live, current 2.6 tables (in VFP views) that are simultaneously used by the 2.6 application.>>
Hi Gary,
A colleague and I did this with no problems. Only differences being that the FPW2.6 app was not written in CB and we upgraded one module of it to VFP3.0 (using CB). The client is still currently using the 2.6 app and the VFP3.0 CodeBook app simultaneously with (knock on wood) no problems. Because the 2.6 app was not in CB we had to abandon the newId() function and generate unique id's the hard way. So, the long and short of it is: yes, it's possible and no, I don't know of any pitfalls.
HTH-
Jenny B.
JLI Data Management
Jenny Brown
JennyLBrown@Compuserve.com
Hi there.
I've been developing in Fox and VFP for some time now, but I'm new to Codebook. Ever since DevCon, I've been trying to make it (original CD that came with my CB3 book) work with VFP 6.0 beta. Could someone who has had success rebuilding/compiling the framework for 5.0 give me some pointers on the correct order, etc. for adapting CB3 for a later version? If you have 6.0 that would be even better!
Thanks.
*************
Bernard Falor
Database Analyst
Library Video Company
<I><FONT COLOR="#663300">Hi there.
I've been developing in Fox and VFP for some time now, but I'm new to Codebook. Ever since DevCon, I've been trying to make it (original CD that came with my CB3 book) work with VFP 6.0 beta. Could someone who has had success rebuilding/compiling the framework for 5.0 give me some pointers on the correct order, etc. for adapting CB3 for a later version? If you have 6.0 that would be even better!
Thanks.</FONT></I>
Bernard,
I've ported several projects to VFP6 and made detailed testings. I've not found any other problems than those that might be "strict date" related. In other words, if it worked in VFP5, it ought to work in VFP6.
But you tell us you are starting from a fresh CDBK3. There have been lots of bug fixes since then. You've certainly read here that there's a new Codebook in the works. In the mean time, I would suggest you to stick to CT Blankenship version, or get the free Mere Mortals guide and apply the changes that are detailed there yourself, except for the handling of bizness objects. For this purpose I'd advise you to work with Ed's eBizObj, it's really superior.
Jose
Jose Constant
Constant Software Systems
Belgium
<a href=http://www.constant.be/css target=_blank>Jose's Web Site</a>
<I><FONT COLOR="#663300"><I><FONT COLOR="#663300">Bernard,
...
But you tell us you are starting from a fresh CDBK3. There have been lots of bug fixes since then. You've certainly read here that there's a new Codebook in the works. In the mean time, I would suggest you to stick to CT Blankenship version, or get the free Mere Mortals guide and apply the changes that are detailed there yourself, except for the handling of bizness objects. For this purpose I'd advise you to work with Ed's eBizObj, it's really superior.
</FONT></I>
</FONT></I>
Thanks for the info. Is there a trick to rebuilding/recompiling the framework files themselves under 5.0 or 6.0? Obviously, the compiler complains if you just leave them as is, since they were compiled under 3.0. I got various errors when trying to recompile the vcx's by loading them into an empty 6.0 project with a dummy MAIN prg and attempting to Build/Recompile All.
*************
Bernard Falor
Database Analyst
Library Video Company
I recently asked the question...
<I><FONT COLOR="#663300">Is there a trick to rebuilding/recompiling the framework files themselves under 5.0 or 6.0? </FONT></I>
But after taking Jose Constant's advice, I found the answer to this issue in the Codebook For Mere Mortals guide. Thanks Jose!
*************
Bernard Falor
Database Analyst
Library Video Company