Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2002


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 42911
interpreted = N
texte = What you can do is use the ReplaceFounditems to change a current field to something like delete and then after the search run the delete function.Not to preach, but you should always have a unique field (an indentifier).----- Original Message ----- From: Donovan To: WebCatalog Talk Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem > > > John Peacock wrote: > > > Donovan wrote: > > > [search find_all] > > > [founditems] > > > [showif [math_TIME]>300] > > > [deletefounditem] > > > [/showif] > > > [/founditems] > > > [/search] > > > > Why can't you do this using the same search terms with the additional test of > > whatever you are doing with [math_TIME]>300??? > > Because it would be easier to have a single tag me thinks. Its just an option that > > makes things easier. [deletefounditem] inside a [founditems] loop would be a simple > > way to know that just that found record is going to be deleted. > > > I don't see any functionality > > that this adds. Besides, full table searches are very CPU intensive and should > > be avoinded at all costs. > > I understand this, however I'll bet it *is* the most common search performed by us > developers. ;-) > -this .db is very small.. (on average 40 records with 4 field names) > > I ended up using [math_TIME] to narrow the search but it isn't really fool proof. > if two records have the same ID (in this case it can happen) and the same > [math_TIME] > variable (unlikely that it is) then they both will be deleted. > > It just would have been nice to throw that tag in there. ;-) Now, if there are > drawbacks > like reducing the speed of the WebDNA engine then I would say no, don't make the > tag. > > At any rate, its not that hard to put an ID counter field in the database and > delete based off > of that so this addition would be more of a comfort tag than a needed tag. > > Donovan > > > > > > > John > > > > -- > > John Peacock > > Director of Information Research and Technology > > Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group > > 4720 Boston Way > > Lanham, MD 20706 > > 301-459-3366 x.5010 > > fax 301-429-5747 > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > <><> Donovan Brooke <><>->ï > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem (Donovan 2002)
  2. Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem (Inkblot Media 2002)
  3. Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem (Donovan 2002)
  4. Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem (John Peacock 2002)
  5. [feature req?]DeleteFounditem (Donovan 2002)
What you can do is use the ReplaceFounditems to change a current field to something like delete and then after the search run the delete function.Not to preach, but you should always have a unique field (an indentifier).----- Original Message ----- From: Donovan To: WebCatalog Talk Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem > > > John Peacock wrote: > > > Donovan wrote: > > > [search find_all] > > > [founditems] > > > [showif [math_TIME]>300] > > > [deletefounditem] > > > [/showif] > > > [/founditems] > > > [/search] > > > > Why can't you do this using the same search terms with the additional test of > > whatever you are doing with [math_TIME]>300??? > > Because it would be easier to have a single tag me thinks. Its just an option that > > makes things easier. [deletefounditem] inside a [founditems] loop would be a simple > > way to know that just that found record is going to be deleted. > > > I don't see any functionality > > that this adds. Besides, full table searches are very CPU intensive and should > > be avoinded at all costs. > > I understand this, however I'll bet it *is* the most common search performed by us > developers. ;-) > -this .db is very small.. (on average 40 records with 4 field names) > > I ended up using [math_TIME] to narrow the search but it isn't really fool proof. > if two records have the same ID (in this case it can happen) and the same > [math_TIME] > variable (unlikely that it is) then they both will be deleted. > > It just would have been nice to throw that tag in there. ;-) Now, if there are > drawbacks > like reducing the speed of the WebDNA engine then I would say no, don't make the > tag. > > At any rate, its not that hard to put an ID counter field in the database and > delete based off > of that so this addition would be more of a comfort tag than a needed tag. > > Donovan > > > > > > > John > > > > -- > > John Peacock > > Director of Information Research and Technology > > Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group > > 4720 Boston Way > > Lanham, MD 20706 > > 301-459-3366 x.5010 > > fax 301-429-5747 > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > <><> Donovan Brooke <><>->ï > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Inkblot Media

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

no word on MacAuthorize... (1997) WebCat (or other) Indexing (1999) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997) [WebDNA] Rack Mount Server(s) Available (2009) WebCatalog NT beta 18 problem (1997) [WebDNA] MySQL float problems with WebDNA (2010) Newbie Help Needed (1998) Sorry WebDNA server not running (2002) whole word matching (2004) [WebDNA] Test (2014) Stopping bad HTML propagation ? (1997) Subject: Authenticating users without dialog box (1997) getchars broken? (1997) 5.0 feature request: Sort for ListWords (2001) I'm new be kind (1997) check out page (SSL) not loading on Netscape 4.0+ (1999) OT: ASP Developer (1999) Can you do this??? and other stuff (1997) pc (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - More limits on [include] (1997)