Ok,
Dirk, last shot at this before we file it away....
If I
had a level (sub tree) that I could enter into a new or updated host
check, I would be able to pre-determine where in the pecking order I would be
( even within the group, which I have the ability to define). That position
would be relevant to the group I am in, obviously. If you look at standard
dependencies,my entry level 4 would be seen as follows:
Current Group
aa
ab
ac
ad (level 3)
ae (level 4)
If I
then moved entry ae to another group, I could retain the level 4 status (even if
there were no other dependencies above my level (I would then depend on level 0
naturally, since there are no other levels). If level 3 were then created, I
would automatically depend on level 3.
New
Group
aa
no entry
no entry
no entry
ae (Level 4)
My
hair is starting to hurt... I am almost sorry I brought this up. (this is not
that BIG A DEAL :-) ) Take a couple days and digest it.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position
From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check position
Still don't understand what you're trying to say I think.
dirk.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Rosiak, John
Sent: Sat Mar 29 5:47 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check positionDirk,I guess where I am going is a form of "absolute positioning within the check itself", so that it can be moved anywhere and maintain its position (right or wrong in the new location).John-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 3:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check positionFrom what I understand this is possible with SA.aaaaaaabababcdedrap & drop of e on ab will cause...aaaaaababaeor am I missing the point?
dirk.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Rosiak, John
Sent: Sat Mar 29 4:19 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check positionDirk,My initial thought was another field to define a "position" within the tree that could be set so that no matter what the group you are working with, the check would always be at the later level (or maintained). Now, that may present a problem with other dependencies, but it may be a more flexible way to position some checks.Let me see if I can picture this for you:a1a2a3all of the above are standard dependencies.Now:a1-L1a2-L5 (indicates the ability to insert other checks before this one ( 4 levels deep and in this example, dependent on a3a3-L3 (the ability to quick-edit change the implied dependency)The above now gives: a1, then a3, then a2 with the ability to throw in a7 with a level of L2, making a2 and a3 dependent ON A7 ???Is this making any sense ????---it sounded good when I said it to myself initially.Keep up the good work....the beta with multi drag and drop looks great---solves my dependency issue very nicely !JohnFrom: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] New check positionNot sure to understand what you mean with it. Can you explain it a bit more?
dirk.
