Bingo! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred C Kopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:59 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: conversion anomoly
> Anyone who can spell "dilettante" correctly is OK with me. > > A true RBase dilettante, > Fred > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wills, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:51 PM > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: conversion anomoly > > > MikeB, I hope I don't flatter myself by asking if "Steve" in your list means > me, as in "Steve in Memphis". At this point, while I have a similar regard > for Razzak, RBTI, and all of Y'All on this list, I do know that I am smart > enough to recognize that I often consider myself little better than a > dilettante (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dilettante) in these matters. > > Now, if you meant, say, Steve McQueen, be he dead or hangin' with our own > hometown Elvis, lemme' offer an a priori mea culpa. > > Regardless, I agree with your comments. > > > > L8R, > Steve in Memphis > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] on behalf of MikeB > Sent: Fri 5/30/2008 5:24 PM > To: RBASE-L Mailing List > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: conversion anomoly > > > > Dennis, > > Sorry I'm jumping in a little late, but I have been slaving for myself all > day > (hate when that happens!). > > I think some perspective on how we have arrived at ver 7.6 might be helpful. > > Even though you might find issues that seem a little quirky or illogical at > the > moment, you should know that most everything about RBase 7.6 / 8.0, is the > result of input from your peer group. > > You have been here long enough to know that the way things are displayed or > dialoged, is through discussion in this forum usually, but not always, > arriving > at consensus on subject matter, and just like Magic, within days (and > sometimes > hours), how and what was described appears in the product. > > Admittedly, sometimes it seems to be at odds with how everyone else does it, > but by and large, most things are as expected. > > But the big picture is we have (collectively) advanced the product to a state > that still elicits "oohs" and "aahs" from long time developers that thought > the > product was awful damn good at the 7.5 stage. > > And to add further to that, I will bet that as long as Razzak remains above > ground, you can expect the product to continue to improve so long as the > faithful pursue it towards perfection. > > There isn't anything you are going to go through in the conversion process > that > the dozens of able and selfless people here like Dawn, Bill, Emmitt, > Claudine, > Javier, Adrian, Gunnar, Steve, James, Larry, and many more, have not already > done before. > > Their individual experiences through trials by fire are at the ready to help > you any time you need it in the very same way you would do for anyone else. > > Mike > >> Thanks, Dawn, >> >> That helps a little. >> >> In that case I would expect with a one-to-many property set, my third table >> would never show any data since it had no linking column to the first table! >> Instead, it pulled all the rows in the third table. Obviously, more light >> needs to be shed on this property! >> >> And, the many-to-many should be the default option, since it is the one most >> likely to be used. >> >> Dennis McGrath >> >> >> >> ---------- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:49 PM >> To: RBASE-L Mailing List >> Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: conversion anomoly >> >> >> Ya - that's one of those things that's not instinctive, since it differs >> from >> the standard definition fo one to many and many to many. >> >> Basically, it's TABLES instead of RECORDS: With one to many, it means I can >> link one table to many tables. With "many to many", it means I can have >> many >> tables linking to many tables. >> >> I'm sure that's not the "definition", but that's how I learned to remember >> to >> check that box! >> >> >> Dawn Hast >> >> >> >> Dennis McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/30/2008 01:09:52 PM: >> >> > Dawn, >> > >> > That was it! >> > >> > LOL! I check the help and it is not much help. >> > >> > What exactly does the "one to many" option do? The result >> > definitely does not look logical to me in any way. >> > The help does not tell me anything useful! >> > >> > Thanks >> > Dennis >> > >> > >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:44 AM >> > To: RBASE-L Mailing List >> > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: conversion anomoly >> > >> > >> > Dennis, >> > >> > Make sure you have "Many to Many" checked under Form Properties > >> > Table Relations. >> > >> > Dawn Hast >> > >> > >> > >> > Dennis McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/30/2008 12:40:20 PM: >> > >> > > I'm doing my first conversion from RBDOS 7.5 to RBWIN 7.6 >> > > >> > > I have a 3 table form with 3 regions >> > > >> > > RBWIN 6.5++ (latest version 1.866) converted the dos form fine. I >> > > tweaked the scrolling regions a bit and the form works great. >> > > >> > > I converted that form to 7.6 (latest version 3.30516) >> > > >> > > The third scrolling region does not link up correctly, it shows all >> > > the records in the third table, not just the records that link to table >> > > 2 >> > > >> > > Any way I can fix this short of removing the region and table and >> > > adding it back manually? >> > > I sure don't want to do this for all my 3+ forms!!! >> > > >> > > Finally trying to catch up! >> > > Dennis McGrath >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >
