Posted by fox.whisper on 03/10/07 13:25

On 9 Mar 2007 16:48:24 -0800, "Kenoli" <kenoli.p@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 11:53 pm, fox.whis...@virgin.net wrote:
>> On 8 Mar 2007 19:04:22 -0800, "Kenoli" <kenol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> How many records?
>
>In this case, not many, only about 400.
>
>>
>> How often does this happen?
>
>This is the main thing it it used for, to go down the list and check
>checkboxes that say things like received such and such a response,
>inquiry sent, etc. The user needs to go through and change things
>like this on maybe 20 records our of the 400.
>
>>
>> >The way I have it set up is that when they are through, they perform a
>> >submit and all records are updated. There are some problems with
>> >this, including the fact that if someone gets to this page in a way
>> >that no data is displayed and hits update, they could erase the whole
>> >database.
>>
>> I don't understand how that could happen... "someone gets to thispage
>> in a way that no data is dispayed"???
>
>If the user has done some other stuff and then gets there using
>browser history, I was able to reproduce a way of getting there that
>had no data in the records.
>>
>> I do this all the time in the various databases I run -
>> 1 - display all the records, allowing inspection for errorneous data,
>> 2 - let the user choose which record needs updated by clicking on an
>> id number (or such), which then...
>> 3 - bring the selected record(s) to screen in a web form which
>> displays all the data and allows correcting of any and every field,
>> 4 - store the result back in the table, allowing either the edited
>> record to overwrite the original or mking the visitor having to delete
>> the original record manually.
>
>Yeah, I do this all the time, too, in fact this script has the
>funcationality to do this when the user needs to upgrade fields that
>don't show up in the list view. You can see that if they are
>upgrading many records it would be convenient to not have to keep
>going back and forth between windows.
>
>>
>> Ok, so it's a bit naive and a bit more laboured than your way, but it
>> doesn't allow the nightmare of anybody deleting all the records in
>> one fell swoop(!).
>
>Absolutely!
>

Well, there's your answer - take the option you've already given
yourself.

[Back to original message]