John, A join is NOT a regular form. If you submit to a join with the user tool you will also not get an id - or rather a zero length string for the returned id.
I have had to work around this by allowing users to specify a "reload query" when needed. Consider a case where you submit to a join and the filters push to underlying tables in such a way so that the resulting record set does not meat the join criterea. If the client is writing against the API it could be argued that he does need to know the structure of the join. But, I am not saying the client needs to know which fields go where. In my case he simply needs to issue another query on the join so that the record he created matches. To do that, he needs to know only of the existance of his 6 fields (to use your example). I ask him to specify it because it is possible that the create transactional values will have undergone data transformations by the filter set and therefor cannot be relied upon. Poor design? I won't argue the point either way. It is moot. This IS the design and you will have to provide something to deal with it much as I had to when I discovered it some time ago. If the product was perfect in every way, you would not be able to earn any money with it. Cheers Ben >----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >From: John Baker ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:36:16 > >Ben, > >Let's say you have a join form J that joins two >forms, A and B. Form A has >fields A1, A2, and A3. Form B has fields B1, B2 and >B3. From the client's >point of view, they all appear on the form J. > >Therefore, the client (writing against the API) >needs to create an entry in >J - but what you're saying is, the client is >supposed to know that out of the >six fields, 3 go on A and the other 3 go in B? Two >separate transactions, >resulting in two entry IDs, which then represents >the Join ID? > >What puzzles me is, you can create the entry >through a join form, but the only >thing not to work is the entry ID isn't returned. >This suggests to me that >someone has realised that the above is wrong, and >it needs fixing... Not to >mention the Java EntryKey object actually >containing an unused reference to a >join key... > > >John > >___________________________________________________ >____________________________ >UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at >http://www.wwrug.org _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
