Re: Forms 3 rearing it's ugly head......

TurkBear wrote:

> I believe one of the problems is that there is no way to force a
> 4-digit year format - users can enter 2 digit years and, depending on
> your database setup, this mu-ight be misinterpreted....
>

You can force to use a 4-digit year format. But there is a problem when you use two digit years because of the absence of the 'rr'-mask.Other (known) problems concerning Y2K and Oracle Forms3:

• implicit conversion of dates (when you assign it to a global var.)
• explicit conversion of dates (check out the used masks)
• use of the NAME_IN and COPY built-ins
• ... ??

Contact Oracle Support for a complete list of known Y2K-problems.

> Please check Oracle's site for full Y2K details on their products...
> www.oracle.com/year2000
>
> Martin Anderson <mhanders_at_bbn.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >I am stuck on a Y2K project that uses Oracle 7.1.6.2.0. and Forms 3. I
> >understand that this version of Forms is NOT Y2K compliant. Could
> >someone explain to me what makes Forms 3 non-compliant? That way I have
> >a better understanding of what to look for when I am scanning the source
> >code for possible problems.
> >
> >Thanks, Martin
> >
Received on Tue Jun 02 1998 - 12:55:17 CEST