|
As I tried to communicate with my previous replies, it's not impossible but far from economical.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
satc wrote: I try it to resolve after getting a final word from you
You already had it several times, and I will think twice before getting involved again 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
No I didn't .
All I get from you is with simple words " ... it's not good to do this".
Give me a clear post : " ..for my opinion , this can't be done at all..."
Anyway , I think to try with another database that is identical with the main database , except that has no relationship. This will help to save a deleted record even when the parent is not deleted. But to find the parent , on the table will be a column that will contain the parent's table name..... That is for the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
satc wrote: Give me a clear post : " ..for my opinion , this can't be done at all..."
Sure it can be done
satc wrote: That is for the moment.
You're welcome, have a great day 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
You really need to try and limit your over engineering of the systems. If it is your client requiring this type of functionality you need to educate them. If it is yourself trying to meet every conceivable scenario you need to take the advice of more experienced developers.
Use the soft delete flag suggested, if the user then hard deletes TOUGH luck, they need to take responsibility for their actions. In 25+ years of LOB applications I have never had to implement such a system as you are proposing.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I respect the opinions of more experienced developers.
That I doesn't accept , it's the response ".. don't do this .." when a complicated problem is asked for help.
I think an experienced developers will answer :
" An idea to resolve your problem is :..........."
"But for these reasons..... it's better to not implement it ".
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a very experienced developer and I haven't read the whole Thread ...
So I don't know if my answer is still given ...
When I read the first postings in this Thread my idea was :
You take your contents, which should be deleted out of your database and put is in an new one, which contains only this deleted things.
Now, if you want to recover it, you only have to chose the entry of the "deleted"-database and put it back to the "work"-database.
This "deleted"-database is only controlled by the application and could not directly accessed by the user.
|
|
|
|
|
This method have the problem with relationship.
I have explained in my earlier post :
Let suppose a record that have Childs , but this record itself is a child of another record.
If this record is deleted with its Childs , when I put on the other database , I will get an error because the parent of this record is not deleted , and will not exist on other database.
I'm thinking to get a identical table without the relationships , but I'm still testing this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
I think, you have to manage it like a class or a collection / List (of T).
If you "delete" an entry it isn't enough to store the data to a new Destination. You also have to memorize from where the data comes (and perhaps to whom the data belongs).
|
|
|
|
|
yes but as I said keeping the relationship inside the other database it's not possible. So I have to find another way to identify the parent of a deleted record. Maybe I can put another column to each table on the other database , and when a record is deleted , I can put on this column the parent's table name before saving to other database. ???
|
|
|
|
|
It smells like you have a weird kind of depandancy inside your database ...
|
|
|
|
|
Why is wired ?
Table 1 - Master records.
Table 2 - Child records for table1
Table 3 - Child records for table2.
If I delete a record from table2 with all the childs in table3.
The problem that I've described will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Not "wired" - weird - that means a kind of crazy ...
Back to your question.
If an element of "Table2" represents "Table3" as datatable then you have to memorize the element WITH it's containing structure. I've never made this but I can't imagine, where the problem is.
If you cut it from the datatable then you have a List inside a List completly independant from the Content). The included List is an Object like a single element too.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry , the problem is not for Table 2 and table3 , but with table1.
For example :
Table 1 ( ID=25 , Name=nm1 )
Table2 ( ID=4 , parentID=25 , name=nmtb2 ) ( foreign key - on parentID )
Table3 ( ID=50 , ParentID=4, name=nm3 ) (foreign key on ParentID )
Now if I delete the record with id=4 from table2 together with the child in table3 , when I try to put these on the other database , I get an error , because the record with id=25 that is the parent of the deleted record , doesn't exist on Table1 (on the other database) because is not deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if he is paid. We're volunteers.
People will stop answering altogether if you dismiss each suggestion. We're trying to help, which you obvious do not like.
--edit
Ah , so if I pay you , you will change your opinion about this problem .
Confused |
No, but I'd be politer in telling you what can and cannot be done, and I'd be paid to correct your ignorance. Since I'm not paid for it, I'm going to say goodbye - that's how it works, once it becomes an annoyance, the help stops.
Good luck, you will need it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
modified 29-Jun-15 5:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah , so if I pay you , you will change your opinion about this problem .
|
|
|
|
|
So if I pay you , you will change the opinion about this question and you will give an idea ?
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of how much you offer, the answer will be a no.
Simply because I don't want to.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
In my country , there's a Proverb :
" When the fox did not achieve to get the grapes , she said that they were undone "
Hope to understand. 
Before down vote this , first try to understand what does this mean
modified 29-Jun-15 6:16am.
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on your abuse vote.
Anything else, or do you want to drop the subject? Doesn't look like any of us will gain anything from it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care.
I'm not here to collect votes.
Maybe you are.
And when you or your friends here have no more to do with a subject , you put a down vote.
Well , please put another , I will be happy .
And I don't think that you or who down vote has understand the proverb.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the ignorant is you .
You have no idea how to resolve the problem , and to cover your ignorance , you just answer that this is not good to be done. 
|
|
|
|
|
 No insults please.
I don't think that Eddy doesn't know from what he speaks.
|
|
|
|
|
Was Eddy that insult me for the first. Read his post.
|
|
|
|
|
satc wrote: I think the ignorant is you .
Whatever you want, kid
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
