PFCHECKLOCK (was RE: am I missing traffic?)

[George Simon]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Harrison [mailto:jeffaharrison at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:11 PM
To: George Simon; filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
Subject: PFCHECKLOCK (was RE: am I missing traffic?)

--- George Simon <GSimon at americanriverintl.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> Well, in the interest of keeping some traffic
>> moving, I'll post a
>> question that I asked Ken a couple of weeks ago, but
>> never received an
>> answer.  Maybe he never got my message.
>> 
>> Native filePro 5.0.14 r/dclerk
>> When running with PFCHECKLOCK=ON and doing a
>> protected browse lookup
>> with browse processing, if an  assignment is made to
>> the records as they
>> pass through the browse processing, I get the
>> message saying that I'm
>> making an assignment to an un-protected record. 
>> This did not happen
>> with version 5.0.09.
>> 
>> Is this a bug introduced after version 5.0.09 or is
>> it that we are no
>> longer supposed to assign values to a record through
>> browse processing?
>> _______________________________________________

>In my opinion it is not a good practice to do what you
>are suggesting.  I don't believe that browse lookups
>were designed for what you are doing.  I would change
>all the browse lookups to read-only, and have a
>separate routine (that utilizes a standard protected
>lookup in a loop) that does the updates that you need.

>Good Luck

>Jeff Harrison
>jeffaharrison at yahoo.com

>Author of JHImport and JHExport. The fastest and
>easiest ways to create code for filePro Imports and
>Exports. 

Well, the browse is to an encrypted credit card database and the numbers
have to be decrypted before they are displayed, so doing it from the
browse processing seemed like the way to go.  In any case, this
processing has been working for years and it wasn't until I tested the
program with 5.0.14 that the warning message started coming up.  I can
always run with PFCHECKLOCK=OFF and not get the message but I was
wondering if this was a bug introduced after 5.0.09 or that is the way
it is supposed to work and the bug was on versions prior 5.0.14.
I also see that with this version the protect lookup question is
defaulted to Yes, something that I think should have been done years
ago.