G
Gary Schuldt
I thought this would be easy: I have
Form frmF (edit mode) based on
Table tT (and not a query).
I wanted to extend the info in tT that you could update via frmF.
I designed it so, if you clicked on a row in an existing Listbox in frmF,
the OnEnter event would display a frmPopupN that allowed you to edit a few
additional fields not displayed directly on frmF. The "N" means a
potentially different popup for each item in the Listbox.
frmPopupN is based on a query that's based on tT.
So far so good. But, when I run it and actually type a value into frmPopupN
and close it, I get a message the effect that "Someone else updated the
record". Or, if I don't get that, then, when I close frmF I get a "write
conflict".
I can sorta understand what's happening here--two forms simultaneously open
that could update the same record in the same table.
But I'm not sure of the "correct" way around this. That's where I could use
some help, because I see so many alternate ways to handle this problem. For
example, it occured to me I could put the "extended" fields currently in tT
into another table to avoid the concurrent update conflict, but that would
be unnecessary "hypernormalizing".
There's probably a "best practice" here I should know about.
Thanks,
Gary
Form frmF (edit mode) based on
Table tT (and not a query).
I wanted to extend the info in tT that you could update via frmF.
I designed it so, if you clicked on a row in an existing Listbox in frmF,
the OnEnter event would display a frmPopupN that allowed you to edit a few
additional fields not displayed directly on frmF. The "N" means a
potentially different popup for each item in the Listbox.
frmPopupN is based on a query that's based on tT.
So far so good. But, when I run it and actually type a value into frmPopupN
and close it, I get a message the effect that "Someone else updated the
record". Or, if I don't get that, then, when I close frmF I get a "write
conflict".
I can sorta understand what's happening here--two forms simultaneously open
that could update the same record in the same table.
But I'm not sure of the "correct" way around this. That's where I could use
some help, because I see so many alternate ways to handle this problem. For
example, it occured to me I could put the "extended" fields currently in tT
into another table to avoid the concurrent update conflict, but that would
be unnecessary "hypernormalizing".
There's probably a "best practice" here I should know about.
Thanks,
Gary