NetTalk Central

Author Topic: EIP Checkbox  (Read 2715 times)

CaseyR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
    • View Profile
    • Email
EIP Checkbox
« on: June 29, 2011, 02:03:50 PM »
For multiple selects, I use a form with a child browse that has the checkbox EIP.  Works fine except for one problem.   If the user checks a record then immediately clicks Save,  the EIP process on the server doesn't execute.   If the user waits for a second or so before clicking Save it works.   Unfortunately, busy users are not likely to go 'one Mississippi' between checking the box and clicking Save.  Even if they know about the problem, it is going to irritate them,

Is there any way to delay the acceptance or execution of the Save click, until after the EIP process is done?

Bruce

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11239
    • View Profile
Re: EIP Checkbox
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2011, 06:19:19 AM »
Hi Casey,

any chance you can duplicate the effect in an example?
I've not seen this sort of effect before.

I'm gussing that both requests actually come into the server (see serve log to be sure) but that the "Save" is completing before the checkbox does. Does your save "inspect" the checkbox while it's working? If so then I guess a small delay there (to let the checkbox-ticked-thread complete) is probably the best approach.

Cheers
Bruce

CaseyR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: EIP Checkbox
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2011, 05:34:39 PM »
Thanks, Bruce

I checked the server logs and if I click Save too quickly the server doesn't receive the Get from the EIP at all.  A delay loop in the validation routine slows the processing but doesn't change the end result.

My solution is to move the Save button further away from the browse so even fast users take a second to click it.  Not the most elegant approach, but it works.

Thanks again.

Bruce

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11239
    • View Profile
Re: EIP Checkbox
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2011, 12:20:33 AM »
sounds a bit funky, but I'll try and duplicate here.