PFCHECKLOCK (was RE: am I missing traffic?)

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting George Simon (Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:28:16 -0400):

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+george=worldest.com at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+george=worldest.com at lists.celestial.com] On
> Behalf Of Kenneth Brody
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:10 PM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: RE: PFCHECKLOCK (was RE: am I missing traffic?)
>
> Quoting George Simon (Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:12:54 -0400):
> [...]
> >> 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.
> [...]
>
> > Why rewrite the lookup records as you go through them?  Why not just
> > decrypt them in the brwlook processing and put the results in a dummy
> > field for displaying on the browse?
>
> I guess that would be an option, but what about my original question?
> This processing worked fine with version 5.0.09 and all previous
> versions of filePro.  What changed with version 5.0.14 that now the same
> processing gets the warning message?
> Are we not supposed to make assignments to protected lookup records from
> browse processing anymore?

I don't believe you ever were supposed to do so.  Remember, you have
not yet selected a record for the lookup.  You are simply browsing
through records.

I would have to check, but the change is probably just better detection
of writing to an unlocked record.  Remember, just because the lookup
has a "-p" flag doesn't mean that the record is locked at the time you
make the assignment.  (For example, after a WRITE.)

--
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com