I'm afraid I have forgotten the little I knew about setpoints and stepping in the debugger. I guess I need to read up on that. - Joe
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Joe Yoder <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the idea Kurt but that was one of the first things I checked. > > I have now determined that any form I call from the main form will always > start at record 1 even if the record pointer is at a different value just > before the call. If the called form changes the record pointer the pointer > value will persist after the form closes. I have added a button to simply > browse the table from the main form. That action respects the value of the > pointer on entry and leaves the pointer in the proper place on exit. > > There must be something about the forms I am using that causes this > problem. I've been looking at the scx files and see that there is a some > information about a cursor there. Is there a setting I need to change to > get the behaviour I need? (I have done a test project where there is only > one table and the behavior continues.) > > Thanks for any ideas, > > Joe > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Just a WAG - but, what is your DataSession property value for the Form? I >> think it should be set to "1-Default Data Session". That may be your >> problem if it says Private! >> >> Regards, >> Kurt Wendt >> Consultant >> >> >> Tel. +1-212-747-9100 >> www.GlobeTax.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe >> Yoder >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:22 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: How to allow multiple forms to update the same record >> pointer in a table >> >> Thanks Kurt - your understanding is correct. >> >> I have pinned down the problem to the detail form. When I call it >> something changes the record pointer to the first record. When the calling >> form gets control back the record pointer is where the detail form left it. >> >> >> I have not been able to find any reason for this but wonder if it is >> related to the fact that the form was first created using the form wizard. >> I had grief with changing the table alias with that form so I opened a >> new form and copied the complete layout. That took care of table name but >> perhaps there is an "unwanted feature" still in place from its former life >> as a wizard created form. I'd rather not do the tedious work of >> regenerating the form - any ideas? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Joe >> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Fernando - that's just the opposite of what Joe wants. He indeed wants >> > Both forms to be looking at the same records - such that if he brings >> > up the 2nd form - and Changes to a different record - then upon >> > returning back to 1st form - it should now be looking at the Same >> > record that Form2 was pointing to! >> > >> > Regards, >> > Kurt Wendt >> > Consultant >> > >> > >> > Tel. +1-212-747-9100 >> > www.GlobeTax.com >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> > Fernando D. Bozzo >> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 1:16 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: How to allow multiple forms to update the same record >> > pointer in a table >> > >> > Hello joe: >> > >> > You may need to use private session en form 2 or on both, so record >> > pointers do not interfere between forms. >> > >> > >> > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative >> > text/plain (text body -- kept) >> > text/html >> > --- >> > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cabqednwoax1gu_5bpehwdnvjjbt86dwh5swfst7_l3vrwgp...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
