Thanks a bunch Works great now.
On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:09 PM, David LeBer wrote:
>
> On 2010-06-14, at 10:36 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
>
>> This is a mandatory to-one. That (presumably) is why the save message was
>> appearing. My question was more about why the data from the removed
On 2010-06-14, at 10:36 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
> This is a mandatory to-one. That (presumably) is why the save message was
> appearing. My question was more about why the data from the removed
> performance was still appearing after I had removed it. In other words, I'm
> not having a
On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
> Cool, glad it wasn't further evidence that I am going insane.
Believe me, nobody here needs _more_ evidence of it.
Dave
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjec
On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David LeBer wrote:
>
> On 2010-06-14, at 10:36 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
>
>> This is a mandatory to-one. That (presumably) is why the save message was
>> appearing. My question was more about why the data from the removed
>> performance was still appearing af
On 2010-06-14, at 10:36 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
> This is a mandatory to-one. That (presumably) is why the save message was
> appearing. My question was more about why the data from the removed
> performance was still appearing after I had removed it. In other words, I'm
> not having a
On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:40 PM, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-06-14, at 4:28 PM, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-06-14, at 4:11 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
That's what I thought. I tried a full page reload to force the
update, and the page comes back as it was, with the performance
details.
On 2010-06-14, at 4:28 PM, David LeBer wrote:
>
> On 2010-06-14, at 4:11 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
>
>> That's what I thought. I tried a full page reload to force the update, and
>> the page comes back as it was, with the performance details.
>>
>>
>
> How is that to-one modelled? i.e: T
On 2010-06-14, at 4:11 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
> That's what I thought. I tried a full page reload to force the update, and
> the page comes back as it was, with the performance details.
>
>
How is that to-one modelled? i.e: This 'should' work fine, let me double check
but I think what
On 2010-06-14, at 3:40 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
> I used that rule, and unchecked my old rule. It worked! Thanks. However,
> now I am having issues if I want to delete the related performance (more
> precisely, remove that performance). I click remove, and the page does not
> refresh an
I used that rule, and unchecked my old rule. It worked! Thanks. However, now
I am having issues if I want to delete the related performance (more precisely,
remove that performance). I click remove, and the page does not refresh and
continues to show the old related performance (though appar
A picture is worth a thousand words (^_^)
Try a rule like
100: not(pageConfiguration like '*Embedded*') => pageWrapperName =
"AdminPageWrapper" [Assignment]
instead. I suspect those are embedded pageConfigurations and your
rule has overridden the use of their default wrapper component
(
Hi Andrew,
On 11-Jun-10, at 1:14 PM, Andrew R. Kinnie wrote:
Greetings all,
I have managed to get D2W to display my entities and tabs (using
ERModernLook) etc., but now I notice a bit of funkiness when
inspecting objects with relationships. Specifically, I have an
Entity which is called
12 matches
Mail list logo
