Re: SYSDATE VS $$DBTIME$$ - UPDATE PROBLEM

From: Lee levy <levy.lee.ls_at_bhp.com.au>
Date: 1995/11/27
Message-ID: <49dbuc$73p_at_merlin.resmel.bhp.com.au>#1/1

Why dont you write a stored database procedure, to run on the server when you push the refresh button, and have the server date time go into your item?
I havent tried it, but it should work.
Also try Oracle document 106573.884, called "getting client date and time" It looks as buggy as all these Oracle documents, but as usual points you in the right direction.

HIH
Lee

---

      /\/\      :  Lee Levy, ISSD Systems Development
     / / /\     :  BHP Information Technology (WOLLONGONG REGION)
    / / /  \    :  PO Box 261, Warrawong, NSW 2502, Australia
   / / / /\ \   :  ACN 006 476 213
   \ \/ / / /   :  Telephone:  +61 42 75-5485  (tie-line 8855-)
    \  / / /    :  Facsimile:  +61 42 75-5500
     \/\/\/     :  Internet :  levy.lee.ls_at_bhp.com.au


====================================================================

Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of either my employer or their clients

In article <49a5pj$fq1_at_its.hooked.net>, Craig <caharper_at_hooked.net> says:

>
>I am attempting to get some fields to update when the refresh 
>button is pressed. the fields are going to display the time of 
>the db when the data was retrived. I have tried to use 
>$$DBTIME$$but there is no way to get an item to update its 
>default value, - set_item_property does not work, without 
>closeing and reopening the form. I then tried to set the value 
>of the Item to sysdate: ie
>
>:item := to_char(sysdate, 'HH:MM:SS');
>
>But the problem with this is that only the seconds are 
>updating. Has anyone encountered this before? How can I get 
>the minutes and Hours to update as well?
>
>PLEASE SOMEONE HELP!!!!!!!
>
>Thank you all,
>
>
>Craig Harper                                                                                                                        =
>                                                                                                        
>
>Thinking is more interesting than knowing,
>but less interesting than looking.
>
>

Received on Mon Nov 27 1995 - 00:00:00 CET