Title: | *OLD* ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference |
Notice: | Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1 |
Moderator: | IOSG::PYE |
Created: | Thu Jan 30 1992 |
Last Modified: | Tue Jan 23 1996 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 4343 |
Total number of notes: | 18308 |
Hi, We have here an application for our admin group, it is to record when customers orders are received. It comprises of 5 menus. The people who currently access it have in their form library OA$site_lib:TRACK.FLB. The problem; How can I give others read only access to a part of this. This is how it runs (ADMIN$MENU) ADMIN TRACKING ORDER - MAIN MENU SEL Select CUSTOMER NAME: BP EXPLORATION P.O.NUMBER : BRUP87301 C Create ADMINISTRATOR : KABE E Edit D Delete R Read CPO Change Purchase Order Number Rep Report RI Recall Index If I type REP it takes me to ADMIN$INDEX REPORT GENERATION FORM CUSTOMER NAME : PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER : ADMINISTRATOR : ASSET : DATE RECEIVED : TO : PURCHASE VALUE : .00 TO .00 Please enter as many details as you can and then press RETURN If I type BP in Customer Name and hit return it brings me up ADMIN$SELECT Index of appropriate orders CUSTOMER NAME DATE VALUE ORDER NUMBER 1 BP EXPLORATION 23-Jul-1992 5000.00 BRUP87301 2 BP EXPLORATION OPERATING 03-Jul-1992 6400.00 COXIT10281004 3 BP EXPLORATION 23-Jul-1992 2500.00 COXIT10281005 4 BP CHEMICALS 20-Jul-1992 1200.00 DM25201EW 5 BP CHEMICALS LTD 09-Jul-1992 63704.00 DM25202 If I select 1 it takes me back to ADMIN$MENU where I sel R and can read it Brings up ADMIN$ENTRY ORDERS ENTRY PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: BRUP87301 CUSTOMER NAME : BP EXPLORATION DATE RECEIVED : 23-Jul-1992 PURCHASE VALUE: 5000.00 ADMINISTRATOR : KABE ASSET : N ENTERED BY : KABE SENT TO : ? COMMENTS : MAIL TO TONY DEANS - QUERY WITH P/O Press RETURN to finish reading What I want is for other users only to be be able to go through the loop and select a record but only have access to the R option. Is this possible and if so how? Thanks in anticipation. Liz Presently admin$index displays the records but allows the users to Edit Delete etc
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1119.1 | Two forms with the same name... | HYTIDE::CREAMER | Fri Jul 24 1992 17:05 | 14 | |
Liz, How about separating the forms in two forms libraries. TRACK.FLB and TRACKREAD.FLB. All users would open TRACKREAD.FLB but only those users that could write records would open TRACK.FLB. (They would open TRACK.FLB _before_ they opened TRACKREAD.FLB.) Both forms libraries would have copies of ADMIN$MENU, but the one in TRACKREAD.FLB would now allow edits. HTH, Jack | |||||
1119.2 | Who moved that key?? | HYTIDE::CREAMER | Fri Jul 24 1992 17:07 | 10 | |
> Both forms libraries would have copies of ADMIN$MENU, but the one in > TRACKREAD.FLB would now allow edits. That _should_ be: ...would NOT allow edits. Jack | |||||
1119.3 | Some other thoughts | SHALOT::NICODEM | Avoid traffic; leave work at noon | Mon Jul 27 1992 19:46 | 11 |
In addition to Jack's suggestion, you could also take several other approaches. One would still present all users with all options, but when any option was selected by a user who couldn't perform that option, a simple message would be displayed. Another approach is the "context-sensitive menu" approach used by V3.0 Customization Managements, where the options presented vary from situation to situation. This comes closer to Jack's approach, but is more dynamic. (It's also much more of a headache to program!) F | |||||
1119.4 | spotted | UTRTSC::BOSMAN | They sold you the view from a hill | Tue Jul 28 1992 09:42 | 17 |
Hi, � situation. This comes closer to Jack's approach, but is more dynamic. (It's � also much more of a headache to program!) I know of an application were the BA menu is totally dynamical, and can be maintained by a specific authorization manager, using a standard ALL-IN-1 interface. Using startup-scripts in which FLB's can be opened (and closed) you'll never have the FRMLIB length problem. An additional feature is that you can create dynamic sub-menu's as well (without having ALL-IN-1 programming knowledge!), to maintain sub-application authorization, which will easily solve .0's problem. Sorry, it's not Digital's (yet). Regards, Sjaak. |