jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Sun Mar 18 11:15:21 CDT 2012
> or you are binding to fields in more than one table. Even that is not strictly true. AFAICT it really has to do with the form being bound to a query with one-to-one recordsets. For example, in one client I have a query where the form is bound to a fairly long string of tables - claimant / claim / policy etc. However, while the tables themselves are one to many, each policy can have many claims, each claimant can have several claims, the form query only pulls a single policy record, a single claimant and a single claim. JET can uniquely identify WHICH EXACT RECORD in each table should be updated. That form is in fact updateable in any of the tables, and I do in fact bind updateable controls to each of those tables. John W. Colby Colby Consulting Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it On 3/18/2012 9:46 AM, Charlotte Foust wrote: > What you say is only true if the query is not constructed to be updateable > or you are binding to fields in more than one table. What version of > Access are you working with? > > Charlotte Foust > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Non-Linearly<nonlinearly at gmail.com> wrote: > >> "I don't get the not updateable part" >> Well in Access a form can be bound to a table or query. If we have a table >> or query without joins to other tables then the form is updateable which >> means that every time you edit a record then the changes automatically >> saved! >> If don't (the form is bound to a query with joins to other tables) then you >> have not this feature (you cannot edit any record in form). >> So the solution is a form bound to a query without join that has a where >> clause to filter the records based on user's security level. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Benson, William >> (GE Global Research, consultant) >> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:37 PM >> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Split table's records according to user acoount >> >> Why on earth.... >> >> Until you wrote what you did in response to Charlotte, hers is exactly the >> solution I imagined.... >> >> >> A user has a security level, and the record has a security level, and any >> time a user has a security level above that required for the record, they >> can see it. >> >> You need joins to the user privileges table. >> >> I don't get the not updatable part. >> >> I am not much good with that aspect, I believe it is handled through >> relationships. >> >> Dunno - but quality databases do it all the time. Absolutely, users never >> see the table. Only a view prepared for them. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Non-Linearly >> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 4:03 AM >> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Split table's records according to user acoount >> >> Thank you very much, so in the worst case I need so many levels of security >> as there are users... >> (although in this worst case that I do not have overlap then it will the >> same to assign each record with a user account). >> >> Thanks >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William Benson >> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 7:54 PM >> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Split table's records according to user acoount >> >> Dont assign users to records assign security levels to both user and >> records. >> On Mar 17, 2012 1:02 PM, "Non-Linearly"<nonlinearly at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I want the records in a table to distribute according to its users. I >>> could create a field that holds for each entry, the user that has the >>> rights to see it. But the problem is that a record may need to be >>> viewed from more than one user! >>> >>> So I made a second table that more than one records each with the user >>> account and the id from the first record. So with this way I can >>> assign more than one user to one record. >>> >>> But then more problems emerge: >>> 1. To take the records assigned to a specific user I have to run a >>> query that join the above tables. The form that is bound to this query >>> cannot be updateable! >>> >>> 2. The query can be achieved only with IN operator and is very very >>> very slow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> -- >>> AccessD mailing list >>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> >> >>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> >>> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> >> >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> >> >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> >> >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> >> >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> >>