[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:	DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:	Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:	TAEC::BEROUD

Created:	Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	6497
Total number of notes:	27359

898.0. "QUERY: Should ADD and REMOVE windows include scalar datatypes?" by COOKIE::KITTELL (Richard - Architected Info Mgmt) Wed Apr 10 1991 14:27

V1.1 SSB

I've noticed that the Set, Add, and Remove windows include all of the
settable attributes for the object. That makes sense for Set, as the
operation is supported for all datatypes.

But should the Set and Remove windows be showing attributes that aren't
Set, Set Of, Sequence or Sequence Of? I've got things coded to reject
such attempts with a reason code of MCC_K_REASN_NOT_SETVALATTR.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
898.1	Non-action modify directives	VERNA::V_GILBERT		`Thu Apr 11 1991 15:07`	11
	Richard, When a form is displayed, one of the pieces of information which is used to determine the fields in the form is the directive type. Set is a non-action modify directive, which I assume is what ADD and REMOVE are also. Forms for modify directives display all settable attributes for the group. To do what you wish, we would need more information in the MS to identify what types of attributes to display at a minimum. Is this what you are looking for? Verna
898.2		COOKIE::KITTELL	Richard - Architected Info Mgmt	`Thu Apr 11 1991 22:01`	12
	RE: .1 >To do what you wish, we would need more information in the MS to identify what >types of attributes to display at a minimum. Is this what you are looking for? Verna, I was thinking that since you know the datatype of each attribute, you could restrict the Add and Remove windows to showing only those with a datatype of Set, Set Of, Sequence or Sequence Of. Does an Add or Remove against any other datatype make sense?
898.3	does it make sence?	TOOK::CALLANDER		`Fri Apr 12 1991 17:40`	12
	I have a feeling you have just asked a subjective question. I could envision some one defining something like an FM, say this FM works on a data base. It imay chose to return it's data using a set or set_of, but on the add it may want to allow the user to do an ADD by supplying the record to be added. The parse time support of a directive should not be limited to the current use of the verb. This problem has been discussed quite a bit in this conference in connection with the fact that we limited the examine and modify directive types to only taking ONE argument of type attribute list. We are already finding out that the limiting decisions we had made in the past are already confining the developement for the future. jill
898.4		COOKIE::KITTELL	Richard - Architected Info Mgmt	`Mon Apr 15 1991 11:53`	13
	>The parse time support of a directive should not be limited to the current >use of the verb. This problem has been discussed quite a bit in this conference Jill, Good point. I had been assuming that the Add and Remove operations had been architecturally limited to operations on set-oriented datatypes. If they aren't, then limiting which attributes the PMs will allow is a bad idea. Thanks for straightening me out. Richard