Re: Checking for uncommited transactions

FC wrote:

> "Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message
> news:b475qk$k8t$1_at_ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> > Or am I missing your point totally?
> >
>
> I think you missed the point, you stated exactly the contrary of my
> intentions, please read the message again.
>
> I am looking for a method of knowing whether a certain user has got any
> pending updates, other than using the usual "Has anything changed" flag at
> the client side and I thought it could be done via a query.
> I am just asking whether you think it is feasible or not, no more, no less.
>
> Thanks and bye,
> Flavio

I'm not sure anyone is missing any point. I think you are trying to manually kludge stuff together that serves no useful purpose. Consider this:

A user selects a record.
They don't make changes.
The record HAS NOT changed and there is nothing to undo or roll back.

A user selects a record.
They make changes and save it.
By definition the record HAS changed and there is nothing to undo or roll back.

Just commit the change.

A user selects a record.
They make changes and decide not to save it. By definition the record HAS NOT changed and there is nothing to undo or roll back.

So what are you trying to do. There is NEVER any reason to rollback a change made in a front-end. Because that change never makes it to the back-end.

Either you need to think this through a bit more or realize that your explanation of what you are trying to do is misleading those trying to help you.

Daniel Morgan Received on Thu Mar 06 2003 - 10:20:27 CST