Comments on: Violation of VPD Policy on DML raises FRM-40654 :Record Has Been Changed by Another User error in Oracle Forms http://technology.amis.nl/2005/11/05/violation-of-vpd-policy-on-dml-raises-frm-40654-record-has-been-changed-by-another-user-error-in-oracle-forms/ Friends of Oracle and Java Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:10:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0 By: Lucas http://technology.amis.nl/2005/11/05/violation-of-vpd-policy-on-dml-raises-frm-40654-record-has-been-changed-by-another-user-error-in-oracle-forms/#comment-2599 Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:29:56 +0000 /?p=889#comment-2599 Wilfred, you may have a point there. The problem, since we are aiming at more than one user interface technology, we prefer to implment the Business Rule in the Database Server rather than the client. The original implementation using VPD seemed a good idea at the time. Now we have to find another way obviously. Perhaps in case of Forms, we have to it in in the client, but it is not ideal.

]]>
By: Wilfred http://technology.amis.nl/2005/11/05/violation-of-vpd-policy-on-dml-raises-frm-40654-record-has-been-changed-by-another-user-error-in-oracle-forms/#comment-2598 Sun, 06 Nov 2005 08:56:57 +0000 /?p=889#comment-2598 I don’t know how complex your DML rule is, but wouldn’t it be more user friendly to determine in the when-new-record-instance whether the record is updateable. If not, make the record read-only in Forms. This prevents the users from changing the record at the beginning without waiting for an error message at commit time.

]]>