Forms 3/4 & Multi-line text storage options.

From: Jennifer R. Amon <bamon_at_ocvaxc.cc.oberlin.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 1993 16:12:55 GMT
Message-ID: <2e7iq7$72l_at_news.cc.oberlin.edu>


I'm looking for pros and cons.

We currently have all multi-line text stored in multiple records with associated line numbers. In forms, we then edit the text using a userexit called from a key trigger.

The key trigger and userexit do (basically) the following:

  1. extract the data from the database & drop it into an editable file,
  2. call the user's editor-of-choice & turn control over to the user,
  3. replace the old data lines with the new (if changes were made),
  4. re-query the data into the form.

We also allow the user to make changes to the data using the form. This is useful when the changes are minor, not requiring any rewrapping of text, etc.

We are now considering whether or not we should change our methods and put small multi-line text data into individual varchar2 fields. The available 2000 characters would allow us 25 lines of 80-character data.

We would still need to use the individually stored lines of text for data elements that could be longer than the 2000-character limit.

Should we change or not?

 Considerations include:

  • forms v4 text editing
  • load on the system
  • extra database activity
  • different text items with different editing methods
  • want to avoid using LONG data. It's a pain
  • How will the old method work if we're not running dumb-terminals to the VAX, but want to use Mac GUI clients?

Opinions welcomed. Steve M., what do you think?

Geez, what will happen to anything/everything we currently do with userexits? We'll need to program for the Macs and put checks in the triggers to call userexit_a if VAX and call userexit_b if Mac?

I guess that's a whole separate question.

Thanks,


Jennifer R. Amon            PHONE: (216) 775-6987
Houck Computing Center        FAX: (216) 775-8573
Oberlin College
Oberlin, OH 44074        INTERNET: bamon_at_ocvaxc.cc.oberlin.edu
_____________________________________________________________________
Received on Thu Dec 09 1993 - 17:12:55 CET

Original text of this message