Servoy 3.5.4

Servoy announcements

Postby Gabi Boros » Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:28 pm

The issue with the styles for "check" & "combobox" has been changed, so if you have no style specified for them, Servoy will use the style for "field", like before;
you can wait for the next release with the bug fix, or create in your css, two new styles, "check" & "combobox", same as for "field"
Gabi Boros
Servoy
Gabi Boros
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Timisoara, Romania

Re: Servoy 3.5.4

Postby jgarfield » Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:22 pm

jgarfield wrote:
svroemisse wrote:[fix] background color not honored for header body parts


This fix is only working correctly for me in Developer, not in Client mode. This is a problem even though I'm setting the color of the form through a style, as well as attempting to set the color of the header via the background property.


Potentially disregard this....I swear this was happening yesterday on multiple clients, but no longer seems to be an issue today.

I can, however, also confirm the "doesn't display images inside of <a> tags" bug, this being an issue throughout our system at the moment.
jgarfield
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Boston, US

Check Combobox

Postby ellenmeserow » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:12 pm

Thanks Harjo -- this worked great. And thanks Servoy for changing it back to avoid upgrade problems for others. Glad to have the sep styles in the end.
ellenmeserow
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Re: 3.53 to 3.54 upgrade

Postby martinh » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:15 pm

HJK wrote:
ellenmeserow wrote:Attached are three screen shots to illustrate the differences that were caused by upgrading to 3.5.4. I think along the way on this thread my point got lost. Harjo seems to be suggesting a fix for me -- but I'd have to go make sure every combobox and checkbox (and i bet radio button) in my solution is classed to this new class, I think. Help?


nope, just create the class: combobox in your style.

like this: combobox {
//do your styling here
}

the same for the checkboxes:

check {
//do your styling here
}
you dont have to apply this to every combobox or checkfield.
You only have to apply the style to the form.


It would be great to have also this possibililty for radios

Code: Select all
radio
{
  // styling
}

radio.myField
{
  // another styling
}
Martin
------------------------------------------------
Servoy Developer
Version 5.2.10/5.2.13
Java version 1.6 update 31
Database SQL Server 2008 R2
martinh
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Belgium

Anchor tag problem

Postby gzola » Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:17 pm

The anchor tag (<a>) creates problems with blobloader. In particular happens that the images do not appear if placed in a link.

Regards
Giovanni Zola
Servizio Innovazione Informatica
Comune di Nuoro

Version: 5.2.4 - build 1006
Java version 1.6.x (Windows 2000/2003 - XP - Vista - Windows 7)
Mysql 5.0
User avatar
gzola
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Nuoro, Sardegna, Italy

Re: Anchor tag problem

Postby ROCLASI » Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:09 pm

Hi Giovanni,
gzola wrote:The anchor tag (<a>) creates problems with blobloader. In particular happens that the images do not appear if placed in a link.

Images and breaks inside HREF's are broken in 3.5.4.
They fixed it in 3.5.5.
Robert Ivens
ROCLASI Software Solutions / JBS Group, Partner
SAN Developer / Servoy Valued Professional / Servoy Certified Developer
Twitter: @roclasi / @servoyforge
--
ServoyForge - Building Open Source Software.
PostgreSQL - The world's most advanced open source database.
User avatar
ROCLASI
Servoy Expert
 
Posts: 5274
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:49 am
Location: Netherlands/Belgium

Postby gzola » Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:52 pm

Thanks for your answer.
Giovanni Zola
Servizio Innovazione Informatica
Comune di Nuoro

Version: 5.2.4 - build 1006
Java version 1.6.x (Windows 2000/2003 - XP - Vista - Windows 7)
Mysql 5.0
User avatar
gzola
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Nuoro, Sardegna, Italy

Foreign Keys

Postby jbader » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:19 pm

Regarding


[fix] support for multiple constraints between two tables when creating relations from foreign keys


I have used this now, and think a slight tweak is in order...

Right now, when one table has multiple keys back to another table, foreign key names are being created as integers e.g. company_to_address_1, company_to_address_2, company_to_address_3 etc. But wouldn't it make more sense to actually use the fk name or column name instead of incrementing an integer and munging?

By incrementing an integer and using that for a name, I am forced to delete the relationships that were created for me (and rename them) because I cannot easily refer to them programatically without referring to the relationship itself and figuring out what columns are in the relationship. If the column names or the actual fk name was used then names would be descriptive and could be referred to programatically easily.

"fk_company_to_address_2" makes no sense to me where as
"fk_company_to_address_bill_to" or "fk_company_to_address_ship_to" does.

Thanks.
jbader
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:24 am
Location: Miami, FL

Postby rgansevles » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:04 pm

I see your point, these relation names are not very descriptive.

However, the problem with using the FK name is that it already used for the opposite relation.
The problem with using the column names is that you will get very long relation names (for example orders_orders_id_to_order_details_order_id).


Rob
Rob Gansevles
Servoy
User avatar
rgansevles
 
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:17 pm
Location: Amersfoort, NL

FK + Integer would be better

Postby jbader » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:28 pm

Regarding using the FK name, it would make sense (to me) to use it, but then tack an auto-incremented integer to the end of it. So a back relationship may end up with fk_carton_to_human2...etc.

That would be a lot better than a non descriptive relationship IMHO.

Another option would be a prefix for the back relationships e.g. bk_fk_... or something
jbader
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:24 am
Location: Miami, FL

Re: Servoy 3.5.4

Postby Karel Broer » Thu May 08, 2008 10:22 am

svroemisse wrote:[new] function setBorder is added to all form elements to change a border at runtime

Excellent new function, Servoy! It would be very nice if all Servoy border dialog options is documented for this function.
Karel Broer
ServoyCamp - http://www.servoycamp.com
User avatar
Karel Broer
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Doetinchem

Postby patrick » Thu May 08, 2008 3:14 pm

Yes, that really is nice. I just found one downside. Setting the border seems to override the margin settings from the style. If have a few pixels left and right margin which is gone after I call setBorder...

Maybe this can be fixed?
Patrick Ruhsert
Servoy DACH
patrick
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:33 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Postby pbakker » Thu May 08, 2008 5:06 pm

Sounds like a case in the support system is needed for this...

Paul
pbakker
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:12 pm
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Postby patrick » Thu May 08, 2008 5:48 pm

done (#131444).
Patrick Ruhsert
Servoy DACH
patrick
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:33 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: 3.53 to 3.54 upgrade

Postby Karel Broer » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:57 am

[quote="martinh"] It would be great to have also this possibililty for radios

radio
{
styling
}

radio.myField
{
another styling
}

[/quote]

Any news on this?
User avatar
Karel Broer
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Doetinchem

Previous

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest