![]() ![]() If you defined the Product file in the dictionary correctly, you would have instructed it to not populate the Vendor ID field: Make the Product update procedure in Clarion the way you usually do. In other words, the database is happy and the user is happy. The idea is to tie a Product to a Vendor by name, but use the Vendor ID in the Vendor and Product file. The vendor name is on all the invoices, letters, emails, etc. The Solution in Edit Form ProceduresĪ good interface is to work the user’s strength – the vendor name. How does a developer resolve these two conflicting points of view? The database must have these IDs, so the lesser of two evils is to force the ID numbers on a user. The database understands the unique identifying number, but not users. Its only meaning is inside a database.Ī link between a product and its vendor is required. A vendor ID is also completely arbitrary. The user interface should use the vendor name, since all of the vendor’s customers know them by name. However, this is horrible for a user interface since “Vendor 48” is meaningless. The problemĪ good data design links two files by a common ID. This value is numeric and always unique, more likely than not an auto-incrementing value. ![]() Out of the box Clarion code performs a lookup in another file to get a value, usually what is known as a “System ID” in generic terms. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |