Re: Processing of WHEN-NEW-ITEM-INSTANCE FORMS4.5

From: John Heaton <jheaton_at_ksi.co.za>
Date: 1995/12/05
Message-ID: <4a11ll$ji7_at_hermes.is.co.za>#1/1


Kevin

A WHEN-NEW-ITEM-INSTANCE trigger will fire every time that item is navigated to except if that item cannot get focus ie is non navigable.

Cheers
John

100704.1155_at_compuserve.com (Kevin Croocmbe) wrote:

>FORMS 4.5.6.0.7
 
>I am struggling to understand the precise circumstances under
>which the WHEN-NEW-ITEM-INSTANCE trigger fires.
 

>My interpretation of the reference manual and the processing
>flow-charts indicate that it should fire when BOTH the the
>following conditions are true:-
 

>a) The trigger process is 'Returning for Input' AND
 

>b) the value of cursor item differs from the value it
> held on the last occasion that the 'Return for Input'
> process executed.

>However, I find this interpretation at odds with the observed
>behavior. I would expect the following trigger to fire just once
>whenever the user navigates ordinarily to block1.item1.

>WHEN-NEW-ITEM-INSTANCE (attached to block1.item1)

>begin
 

> go_item('block2.item1');
 

> go_item('block1.item1');
 

>end;

>However, I find that what actually happens is that the
>form fires the WHEN-NEW-INSTANCE-TRIGGER ad infinitum
> - presumably because the go_item('block1.item1) is
>(unexpectedly) causing the trigger to re-fire!

>The same code as a WHEN-NEW-BLOCK-INSTANCE trigger,
>fires only once (as I would expect).

>Questions
 

> a) Am I mis-understanding the trigger processing
> here, or is this a bug.
 

> b) The processing flow-charts indicate that the
> 'Return for Input' process executes as part of
> the 'Put Cursor At' process which itself is invoked
> by many of Built-ins.
 

> Am I right in assuming that the 'Return for Input'
> process does NOT execute when invoked from a built-in
> operating as part of a sequence of statements in
> a trigger?
 

>c) Does any-one know of a more up-to-date/accurate
> description of the Forms trigger processing model
> than the ORACLE reference?

>Thanks.
Received on Tue Dec 05 1995 - 00:00:00 CET

Original text of this message