Arthur Fuller
artful at rogers.com
Sun May 4 12:11:47 CDT 2003
Which is exactly why we need the third case, because some people have access only to one faculty and one school within it. The second case deals with people who have faculty access and all schools within it. The first case deals with 'All', 'All'. Unless I'm missing something, which has happened before and will doubtless again. -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gustav Brock Sent: May 4, 2003 12:29 PM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [AccessD] Upsizing (was: Desperately Seeking!) Hi Arthur > You've omitted the third case, where say Faculty = 'FB' and School = > 'BM'. Some users cannot see their whole faculty, just their school. That's what I suspected - but the second case will return True for those records of a given Faculty no matter what School ... ?? /gustav > Hi Arthur > Haven't followed this thread closely, but wonder how: >> Faculty_ID = @Faculty_ID AND School_ID = @School_ID >> OR >> Faculty_ID = @Faculty_ID >> OR >> @Faculty_ID = 'All' > would differ from: >> Faculty_ID = @Faculty_ID >> OR >> @Faculty_ID = 'All' > /gustav >> Glad you noticed and glad to share it. It's just one of those >> slaps-aside-the-head that we occasionally need. In this case, it's the >> assumption that you test parms against column values. But suppose you >> reject this notion. Case in recent point, there are two columns called >> Faculty_ID and School_ID, so that the permutations might be something >> like this: >> FB BM >> FB All >> All All >> The "scope" values are in a table called tblUsers. You grab the >> values >> for the current user from there and apply them to a single sproc that >> covers all cases. Like so: >> SELECT * FROM someTable(s) >> WHERE >> Faculty_ID = @Faculty_ID AND School_ID = @School_ID >> OR >> Faculty_ID = @Faculty_ID >> OR >> @Faculty_ID = 'All' >> This grabs all possible combinations. >> The point is, you can test parms against values rather than column >> contents, as in the last line. >> A. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters >> Sent: May 3, 2003 2:08 PM >> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com >> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Upsizing (was: Desperately Seeking!) >> Arthur, >> The scenario I described is pretty much limited to a LAN situation, >> not a WAN. I can see why a WAN database may work better with an >> unbound database. >> But what I really am calling about is the "All" argument. Could you >> replay with an example? This sounds like it could be really valuable. _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com