[thesite] User page data

rudy r937 at interlog.com
Wed Oct 10 08:30:15 CDT 2001


> Members choose to add their own attributes.
> Are these member-created attributes linked in
> any way to the user?

they are linked through the attribute-membattr-member-user
relationships

... if you really meant to say "user" instead of "member"   ;o)

but no, there's no direct connection, if you're thinking along the lines of
"who created this attribute?"


> Or once a member creates a new attribute, all
> members can then use that attribute for themself?

that was the idea


>I'm not real crazy about allowing members to add attributes;
> I would prefer if the template has "standard" attributes, and
> if anyone wants something else added, it gets "approved"
> beforehand, so that we don't end up with redundant attributes.
> What do others think?  (Or am I misunderstanding?)

no, you do understand it

however, if all existing attributes were available to choose from, say in a
dropdown (yes i realize this could get big fast) then redundancies will be
minimal

but i think the idea isaac had (if i may hijack it for this database
structure), to build a form where the really common ones were "hardcoded"
into the form, would mitigate that a lot


> Display wise, how do we link Remarks back to the attribute?

the basic layout of the member data is as i suggested the other day

   [Attribute]    [Attrvalue]
                            [Remarks]

the Attribute would probably be in a CFOUTPUT GROUP=

(the other day i used Section instead of Attribute)

the remarks just tag along with the attrvalue they describe


> And, do we prefill (I don't see how we can) various Remarks?

no


> The question becomes, what is the Max (i.e. memo field,
> I dunno what they are in Oracle) amount allowed?

you can use varchar2(2000) i think

best not to use LONG because it's not searchable (last i heard)


> And, do we "really" want to use Max amount for each
> attribute?  Isn't this database no-no #1?

variable length field == no worry   ;o)


> I'd say [Seq] should be member-assigned.  i.e. they
> build their page based on what information they provide
> and in what order they would like that information to appear
> on the page.  Code wise, I guess we'll have to check for
> sequence values for each user, in that they don't use the
> same seq value twice?

nah, dupes are fine, they all sort together

best example i can think of off the top of my head just now is the sequence
of tasks all due on the same day -- you could have a subsort on priority,
or something, but why bother?

besides, Seq will be an updatable field, and when members start loading
data, they could use Seqs like 100, 200, etc.



rudy







More information about the thesite mailing list