Hi list,
I just got the latest CVS files...
If you use the German language file for example, the tab design looks really
bad under IE6...
If you view the same page with Opera, everything is OK.
Could someone check this?
Alexander
Okay, I got the new relation stuff to work. (After going back over
documentation.html more carefully...)
Thanks for the help on that.
I like the new way of assigning relations. It is much easier than doing
it by typing in the values--and thus solves part of my issue with the
field names since I don't have to go into the table to add the
relationships. Nice work.
Regards,
Jay Davis
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too
dark to read.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002, Beck, Mike <mike.beck(a)ibmiller.de> wrote:
>> Hello:
>>
>> I'm having trouble getting the relation stuff to work in
>> 2.3.0-rc1. I've
>> changed the structure of my table (new fields, field names,
>> etc.) but the
>> links that used to work in 2.2.6--where I can click on a value and it
>> opens a window with the related value--don't work anymore.
>
>hmm, this should work, if you have the data in your relationtables. do i
>understand you correctly, that you had that feature from the dev versions,
>and now changed to a central PMA DB as i wrote in the docu? the pma db and
>all are written in the configfile? (you are using a new configfile? there
>used to be bookmarkdb which i changed to pmadb)
>
>>
>> Also, when I click on the new 'Relation View' link, I get a
>> list of the
>> fields in the table but all of the popup boxes are empty.
>
>
>hmm, strange, that should work without the acutal relationstuff, it should
>just find the primary keys for all tables in this db. you sure you have
>sufficient rights? please check the produced sourcecode. ist there no option
>done there?
>
>
>--
>Regards
>
>
>Mike Beck
>mikebeck(a)users.sourceforge.net
> So it's not easy to have only one way to describe various
> cases, but I think that
>
> the field names in our relation table are clear enough.
>
well in any case, i made the tbl_relation.php3 after we changed the names
the last time in the hope that people would be able to stop wondering about
which column means what. But this doesn't work for him as well, so i hope
that when we are able to help him use that he can ignore the column names we
choose as well ;-)
--
Mike Beck
mikebeck(a)users.sourceforge.net
i remember that last week somebody sent an url to this list explaining why
there is a problem with 4.2.1, but i can't find that email in the archive
(not knowing what the subject was) ... could somebody please send that url
to me?
--
thanks
Mike Beck
mikebeck(a)users.sourceforge.net
> As it is now, the relation table is very confusing. I see
> your point, but
> it is more important to use standard DBMS terminology. We
> want other DBA
> professionals to look at this and immediately understand it.
>
well maybe i am not DBA Pro enough for that, but i always
prefer to think of what data i have where and not how i would
call that column if my MySQL Version allready had foreign keys ;-)
--
Mike Beck
mikebeck(a)users.sourceforge.net
> PRIMARY KEY (`foreign_db`,`foreign_table`,`foreign_field`)
>
> This makes much more sense. (The same foreign key can be in
> many tables,
> but it must always refer to the same primary key.)
>
hmm i don't think so, in your example clearly the order is the master table
and the articles are in a detail/slave whatever you might call it table. of
course the column in the mastertable that links to the details table is
called foreign key, but because it links _to_ a foreign table, so articles
is this foreign table that it links to.
--
Regards
Mike Beck
mikebeck(a)users.sourceforge.net
> Hello:
>
> Dropping an empty table doesn't seem to work in 2.3.0-rc1.
>
> (I've only tried this on one table...)
>
hmm, i allready have a cvs version of rc2, but it works for me, so once
again, i have to ask you to check your permissions. (btw: how is your
relationstuff now? any help with the mail i sent you?)
--
Regards
Mike Beck
mikebeck(a)users.sourceforge.net
Hello:
I'm having trouble getting the relation stuff to work in 2.3.0-rc1. I've
changed the structure of my table (new fields, field names, etc.) but the
links that used to work in 2.2.6--where I can click on a value and it
opens a window with the related value--don't work anymore.
Also, when I click on the new 'Relation View' link, I get a list of the
fields in the table but all of the popup boxes are empty.
Is anyone else having this problem or do I have an configuration problem
or what?
Thanks,
Jay Davis
"This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers,
dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything
important, you're insane." --disclaimer for a web 'survey'
Hi list
Tracing this bug, and looking at the source, in several places, people
writing a feature have each created their own SQL parser to get the data
out that they wanted. This has lead to problems because not all of these
parsers have been robust.
This bug is one of problematic parser bits, and there have been a few in
the past that have been fixed.
I have a large suggestion to make, for the 2.3.1 release. definetly not
2.3.0.
My parser system is very robust, and will take any query that you can
throw at it without doing any of this.
My parser is also modular enough that after I have the parsed query
stored, I can extra parts of it and do a lot of things with it easily. It
would be fairly trivial to make something to properly extract the table
names from the parsed data as such. (I'll write the function for it
tonight).
Once we put the new parser in place, could we see about cleaning up all of
the other little buggy parsers throughout the source? This will also have
the advantage of making the main code faster, and the SQL statement will
only be parsed once, and the data is fast and easy to extract from the
parsed statement.
The parser is up at:
http://games.techbc.ca/~robbat2/sqlparse.php
You can now enter your own query directly on the form to try out.
I'm working towards a second version of the parser, written from the
ground up now, to redo some of my hacks in the first version properly.
For my parsed query the final format will be like this:
$sqlParsed = array (
'query_count' => (number of seperate queries in statement)
1 => (first query)
2 => (second query)
...
)
the format for each query is:
array (
'original' => (untouched query)
'token_count' => (number of tokens)
0 => first token
1 => second token
...
)
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : robbat2(a)orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639
