On 2/2/2012 1:06 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> On 02/01/12 17:01, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>> But in my example, you don't change the code at all, regardless of the
>> backend, because I was calculating off the locally created cursor.
>> Hence, it works no matter if I switch backends or not. Re
On 02/01/12 17:01, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> But in my example, you don't change the code at all, regardless of the
> backend, because I was calculating off the locally created cursor.
> Hence, it works no matter if I switch backends or not. Remember you
> only tie to VFP objects and cur
On 2/1/2012 6:41 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> On 02/01/12 11:28, Frank Cazabon wrote:
>> OK, cool. Of course you need the with (buffering = .T.) clause in your
>> SQL if you use buffered data :)
>
> And that's EXACTLY why I don't do it in the form. Those considerations
> belong in the data layer, not
On 2/1/2012 6:37 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> On 02/01/12 11:12, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>> No, I think the example you gave with updating the invoice total as
>> items are added in the UI is fine there. In my form, I'd have a simple
>> routine that calculated the total/sum and updated the te
On 02/01/12 11:28, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> OK, cool. Of course you need the with (buffering = .T.) clause in your
> SQL if you use buffered data :)
And that's EXACTLY why I don't do it in the form. Those considerations
belong in the data layer, not the UI.
If I change from .DBF to something els
On 02/01/12 11:12, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> No, I think the example you gave with updating the invoice total as
> items are added in the UI is fine there. In my form, I'd have a simple
> routine that calculated the total/sum and updated the textbox that
> reflected that total:
>
> thisf
On 2/1/2012 2:37 PM, Paul McNett wrote:
> Keeping the UI code-minimal with regards to data is a good thing to strive
> for.
Agreed. That was the major headache iirc with classic ASP.
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutio
On 2/1/2012 2:28 PM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> OK, cool. Of course you need the with (buffering = .T.) clause in your
> SQL if you use buffered data :)
Yes! Good catch, Frank.
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
http
On 2/1/12 11:12 AM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 1:20 PM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
>> yes, it does make development easier, but I still do find instances
>> where I would use SQL in the UI for display purposes, but maybe I should
>> be trying to avoid that more.
>>
>
> No, I think th
OK, cool. Of course you need the with (buffering = .T.) clause in your
SQL if you use buffered data :)
Frank.
Frank Cazabon
On 01/02/2012 03:12 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 1:20 PM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
>> yes, it does make development easier, but I still do find insta
On 2/1/2012 1:20 PM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> yes, it does make development easier, but I still do find instances
> where I would use SQL in the UI for display purposes, but maybe I should
> be trying to avoid that more.
>
No, I think the example you gave with updating the invoice total as
items ar
yes, it does make development easier, but I still do find instances
where I would use SQL in the UI for display purposes, but maybe I should
be trying to avoid that more.
Frank.
Frank Cazabon
On 01/02/2012 12:38 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 5:49 AM, Frank Cazabon wrote
So would you call your bizobj method while the user was editing the
invoice in order to update the invoice total as a new line item gets
added? I've always thought of that as being a UI thing (as it's just
for display so the user can see what the total is) rather than a BO
thing. Although I w
On 02/01/12 02:49, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> Ah, all my systems are n-tier too, but I still make use of sql commands
> against the local cursors for various aspects of the ui, such as totaling
> invoice details during editing and so on.
>
I do that as well, but the sql commands are in a prg. The met
On 2/1/2012 5:49 AM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> Ah, all my systems are n-tier too, but I still make use of sql commands
> against the local cursors for various aspects of the ui, such as totaling
> invoice details during editing and so on.
Oh we query against our local cursors too, Frank, I'm sure, b
On 2/1/2012 4:08 AM, Alan Bourke wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012, at 09:03 PM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
>> Dan,
>> You don't use sql in your forms? Why not?
>>
>
> Probably the classic tiered approach and the separation of the UI and
> data layer.
>
> I tend to try to have minimal code of any kind in
Ah, all my systems are n-tier too, but I still make use of sql commands
against the local cursors for various aspects of the ui, such as totaling
invoice details during editing and so on.
I'm also a relative newbie here on profox and do not recall that discussion.
On 1 Feb 2012 01:52, "Dan Covill
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012, at 09:03 PM, Frank Cazabon wrote:
> Dan,
> You don't use sql in your forms? Why not?
>
Probably the classic tiered approach and the separation of the UI and
data layer.
I tend to try to have minimal code of any kind in form classes, instead
just calls to programmatic clas
Hi, Frank
We had a major discussion on this topic in ProFox many years ago, and I
tend to assume that everybody was here for it. Sorry.
From the time I moved to VFP from FP2.6, my inflexible rule is never,
NEVER, diddle with the database in a form. My form is a User Interface,
nothing more,
Dan,
You don't use sql in your forms? Why not?
On 31 Jan 2012 20:13, "Dan Covill" wrote:
John:
The main gotcha I know of in going from 7 to 9 is in the SQL logic,
which is unlikely to appear in a form method. So you should be able to
twiddle the form in VFP9, then run it in 7, so long as you d
John:
The main gotcha I know of in going from 7 to 9 is in the SQL logic,
which is unlikely to appear in a form method. So you should be able to
twiddle the form in VFP9, then run it in 7, so long as you don't use any
of the VFP9-specific enhancements.
FWIW, the longer I work with 9, the quic
2012 12:30 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Using VFP 9 to modify a VFP 7 system
As long as you're not talking about an .EXE, but separate .SCX/.SCT forms, then
yes. Just be sure not to include anything specific to VFP9 in the code.
Fred
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John J.
As long as you're not talking about an .EXE, but separate .SCX/.SCT forms,
then yes. Just be sure not to include anything specific to VFP9 in the
code.
Fred
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John J. Mihaljevic <
john.mihalje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If someone wants their VFP 7 syste
23 matches
Mail list logo
