Visual Foxpro Tutorial Pdf
Dot Liljenquist
The problem is that table1.dbf is somewhat locked and I cannot modify it so i copied the whole data and made a table for it. Now, i can update the table freely. After updating some rows, i exported it into a dbf file and replaced the original 'table1.dbf'. The problem is that when opening my program, it shows the following:
I understood that you have to commit the .dbf file before you can use it. Is there a way to commit the newly 'table1.dbf' without using foxpro? I managed to use visual studio but cannot find a tutorial on how to do it.
What you're encountering is a quirk of the way FoxPro hacked the older xBase standard to allow "databases." The DBC itself is a table that lists the names and fields of a set of other tables, in addition to some DBC-specific items like local views and whatnot. To add a redundant check, the header of each table is additionally edited to include a relative path back to the DBC.
1: For very simple edits, you could just open the dbf in a descent text-editor (I've done it with NotePad++) and make the corrections manually. So long as you produce rows and fields that are still the expected width, FoxPro won't even care that you made the changes manuall. Of course, this is very error-prone, so backup before you attempt it and don't try thins for anything non-trivial.
2: Install the Microsoft OLE DB Provider for Visual FoxPro and have the provider mange your FoxPro data. Rather than relying on the soon-to-be-removed ability of Access or Excel to edit DBF's that are mostly compatible with FoxPro, you can get a direct connection and perform most DDL and DML tasks yourself.
You are obviously stuck in a not great, but not completely lost state, depending on the table structure. Free tables (those not part of a database container -- .DBC), only allow column names to be up to 10 characters in length. If part of a .DBC, then column names can be much longer. Anyhow, when a table is originally part of the .dbc, the individual file header is stamped with the .dbc reference so it can automatically be opened when the table is opened.
What it SOUNDS like, is that when you have the database container opened and try to open the file, it does not find the header linkage and is asking how to resolve it. The only way to back link is by opening the file exclusively and explicitly responding with Yes, add the back link.
As far as referencing the tables from Access, when you are making the connection string, it should point to the path where the tables are, not a specific table. if you are working with a database container, it SHOULD automatically open when the file is accessed through the data provider. You can additionally, connect, but the path should include the .DBC reference of the database container.
Chair Colvin
announced that there would be a meeting on campus regarding the lower division
transfer issues with campus representatives from other community colleges
around the Bay Area to talk about transfer patterns within the 30 disciplines
under discussion in the CSU. A report would follow at the March 29 senate
meeting.
Colvin also
announced that online voting for the selection committee for the search for a
new VP of Advancement. An email had been circulated the day before announcing
nominations for this search committee.
Secretary Fielden
noted that the campus would be participating in a system-wide large scale
assessment of a test developed in conjunction with the non-profit testing
service ETS, to be called the ICT initiative. Senators had a handout at their
places that outlined the purpose of the initiative and some details regarding
the test, which would be occurring in a ten-day period beginning March 4.
Senators were encouraged to share this information, which would also be
distributed to colleges and departments. Senators were urged to encourage
undergraduate students to sign up to be test-takers. Incentives for the
students included a 25 dollar gift certificate and a chance to win an iPod in a
lottery (50 to 1 odds.) The test was designed to test Information communication
Technology proficiencies, and could potentially be utilized by the campus in
several ways.
Intersegmental Coordinating Committee (ICC) an arm of
California Education Round Table, whose mission involves preparing students for
the workplace, had concerns that included students transferring from community
colleges to the CSU. One issue for our campus was that this group had the
attention of the legislature, particularly regarding K-12 education. There did
not seem to be enough concern about graduate education, and there was a need to
keep aware of what this group was doing. He mentioned the Institute for
teaching and learning and summer scholarships, and what kind of support faculty
needed to be better teachers. Lastly there was the student grievance process
issue with the most important element being that senators know what process was
present at the department, college and university levels, and that everyone
needed to know that the grievance process existed and was in a position to
serve its purpose.
Dmytrenko indicated that campus already had a
tutorial up on the web that dealt with privacy issues and contained a test, and
this served as a beginning point for this newer product. It would be a one-time
requirement for all employees. If an individual staff member did not have
access to the web, their office could do one-on-one training. There were a
number of key issues that all employees needed to be understood. New
information would be included at a later date.
Dmytrenko responded that it would be possible
to see who had completed the training. No real deadline was envisioned yet but
that the motivation was that no one would be able to access student records
without doing the tutorial.
Senator Abella spoke as Co-chair of the Student Advisory Committee
and as a participant for the past two years. He indicated that the Voter
pamphlet in front of senators had been approved by the committee last week, and
concerned the March 14-16 referendum, and provided some background. Last year
the students had voted on four items in a referendum. Athletics had been on the
ticket and had lost by a very narrow margin, unlike the other items which had
been approved. Since then, reductions had taken place with five sports lost.
Based on this and the narrow margin for victory, the president had charged the
committee to review this action, resulting in two town hall sessions, the first
focused on the athletic community, the second with a more general focus. The
response from the community was that athletics should be supported again. The
committee was charged to do a survey, with strong campus support indicated.
Alumni, faculty, and staff were all committed to the program. Realistically it
seemed unlikely that general fund support could be expected in the near future.
The only real source of support would be a student fee increase. To build
stable program, campus would need this.
Currently
students paid $24 to the athletic fund and the proposal would increase the fee
by $17. He mentioned the difference between Intramural and other sports. The
fee would rise in future years, until year 5 when the fee would be pegged to
the CSU fee percentage increase. He spoke to the need for stable funding.
As to process, the proposal had come to the committee over a month ago;
the committee responded with diligence and had to consider its referendum
policy. It was necessary to waive the 60-day notification period, and the
30-day pamphlet notification period. The whole process normally needed a whole
year, but circumstances suggested a change in policy in this particular case. His
feeling was that support of the athletic department helped make SFSU a
university. If this passed, the whole athletic department would be funded by
student fees, so he expressed some hesitancy in having student fees assume the
entire burden. Second, looking at fee increase, there were also some issues for
the year 2009-10 when fee would hit a phase adjusted to the university budget.
The university would still not be contributing any general fund support. As a
student, he thought it desirable to keep athletics.
Senator Yee
thanked Abella for his efforts and observed that SFSU had a relatively low
athletic fee compared to other campuses, and she questioned an item on the
inner panel of the pamphlet as to what the budget increase meant.
Senator Abella responded that he did not know exactly how that
particular provision would play out. He deduced that it was based on the
general fund support given to campus, the percentage increase allocated for
that.
Senator Abella
thought this a good note to end on, as he had a strong belief in student
voting. Students did not always vote in large numbers, yet he had been
encouraged by the large turnout the previous year. Faculty had been
encouraging, and the stakes were high now.
Senator Abella
responded that distribution places included the student building, the
administration building, the library, all across campus. The Website location
was listed on the front page with more information.
Senator and
Chair of APRC Garcia began with some background. APRC was about to
finish its fifth cycle of review and each cycle had proceeded according to
senate policy. A ten-member task force had been constituted in the fall, with
the goal of a draft for the senate early in the spring semester. The focus had
been on the most pressing issues first. One priority that emerged in aftermath
of the last WASC accreditation review was some noted deficiencies in graduate
programs at SFSU. The committee had to deal with this without abandoning its
other tasks.