Subject | Re: tib_grid performance |
---|---|
Author | stanw1950 |
Post date | 2002-02-22T15:43:10Z |
Thanks for the response Marco. Basically the solution is - it hurts
when I do that so don't do that.
In our situation there are many times where a user is at a part
number (for example) and wants to get to a similar part number
quickly. He doesn't want to click next or prior until he finds it and
he doesn't want to start typing part of the part number until he
finds it because he may not know exactly what the part number is. By
seeing a grid with many part numbers (and their attributes), he can
scroll around quickly until he recognizes the correct part number
(based on the attributes) and just have to click on it in the grid to
make it current. Also, our application is such that if the user is at
an order in the order screen (for example) and clicks to the part
screen, the part that was on the order is made the current part in
the part screen (with a locate). It may be the last part in a 30000
part table.
I'm not saying that this is not bad C/S design, but I can't tell the
users that we can't do it like that anymore because it's bad C/S
design. They'll say that's B/S. I want to eliminate the bde, so I'll
keep trying. Thanks again.
Stan Walker
when I do that so don't do that.
In our situation there are many times where a user is at a part
number (for example) and wants to get to a similar part number
quickly. He doesn't want to click next or prior until he finds it and
he doesn't want to start typing part of the part number until he
finds it because he may not know exactly what the part number is. By
seeing a grid with many part numbers (and their attributes), he can
scroll around quickly until he recognizes the correct part number
(based on the attributes) and just have to click on it in the grid to
make it current. Also, our application is such that if the user is at
an order in the order screen (for example) and clicks to the part
screen, the part that was on the order is made the current part in
the part screen (with a locate). It may be the last part in a 30000
part table.
I'm not saying that this is not bad C/S design, but I can't tell the
users that we can't do it like that anymore because it's bad C/S
design. They'll say that's B/S. I want to eliminate the bde, so I'll
keep trying. Thanks again.
Stan Walker