Skip to Content

PowerBuilder 12.6 Creates Wider Columns on New Datawindows Than PowerBuiler 12.5.1

Jul 06, 2017 at 06:31 PM


avatar image

In PB 9.5.1, when using the File/New/ Datawindow/Tablular to create a new datawindow object, a char(1) column in an Oracle database is created with a width of 55 characters. In PB 12.6 when the same process is used the width of the column appears to be based on the width of the corresponding header, thus creating a column much wider than previously.

This is not significantly important because when creating new datawindows, we usually manipulate the column sizes/positions regardless. However, we do have places where we use the SyntaxFromSQL function to dynamically create datawindow objects. This new behaviour is now creating a different look than in 12.5.1.

Is this a known issue? If so, are there any settings or procedures that can be used to return the behaviour, particularly for SyntaxFromSQL, to its previous behaviour?

Thanks for your assistance,

10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
* Please Login or Register to Answer, Follow or Comment.

2 Answers

Chris Pollach Jul 06, 2017 at 09:39 PM

Hi Aubrey;

As a work around suggestion ... I would use the PB database extended attributes to control the column's width (and height if required), font, display masks, etc. At production run-time, the extended attibutes (from the PBCATxxx tables) will also influence the SyntaxFromSQL command as well to keep everything uniform.


Regards ... Chris

10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
Aubrey Eichel Jul 06, 2017 at 11:57 PM

Thanks for your response Chris. I'm not sure that would work though.

Currently, the operator selects a table to display and we use the system views to create a Select statement for all columns in the table. We run that Select through SyntaxFromSQL to create the syntax to be used to create the datawindow object. The help for extended attributes indicates that their use cannot be specified in code, so I'm not sure how to accomplish that.

Am I correct in assuming that as your suggestion is a workaround that the behaviour has been changed and that their is no way to alter it other than with workarounds? Am I also correct in assuming that behaviour is carried forward into PB 2017?

Very much appreciate your assistance Chris,

Show 1 Share
10 |10000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded

PB 2017 is based off the PB 12.6 code, so unless there was specific request to fix it in the Appeon version, you should assume the behavior is the same.