Re: Forms 4.5, Personal Oracle7 & FRM-40654

From: Lee Mayhew <lmayhew_at_ionet.net>
Date: 1995/04/27
Message-ID: <3noh6a$eeu_at_ionews.ionet.net>#1/1


In article <3no9jf$nge_at_eccdb1.pms.ford.com>, jordan_at_pt5026.pto.ford.com says...
>
>Lee asks:
>
>>I am devloping an application using Forms 4.5 and Personal Oracle7
>>that has one central control block, that has the insert, update, delete
>>properties turned off. This block is just to basically for querying
>>data, although it is also used update, insert, or delete data for
>>a corresponding table in the database. It does this by calling another
>>block which will pops up a window where the user can change data in
>>a block that doesnot correspond with any table. Once the user is
>>finished editing data by pushing the "OK" button, the necessary update,
>>or insert property is turned on and data is passed back to the central
>>block where the data is commited to the database for the corresponding
>>table.
 

>>This works fine for the first update or insert. But when I try to
 update
>>a record for a second time I get a "FRM-40654: Record has changed.
>>Re-query to see changes.". The cause of error in the book says another
>>user has changed the row. I don't understand this since I am runing
>>Personal Oracle.
>
>The other user is yourself. Whenever you have two blocks based on the
>same table you may run into this problem. When you query rows into the
>first block, then do the same with the second block you have "two"
 users.
>If you modify a row in one block and commit, the other block will still
>have the old data. When you try to modify this row, SQL*Forms detects
>that it no longer has the current values and lets you know that
>"somoneone else" changed it. Requery the other block to get around the
>problem or try another approach completely.
>
>David Jordan
>

Dave,

I can see what you are saying happening if I were using two blocks that corresponded to the same table.... but the block I am using to edit the data is a "control block" and does not correspond with any table in the database, therefore I wouldn't think it should effect the status of the block I am using to update the table.

Lee Received on Thu Apr 27 1995 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message