Hi everyone.<br><br>
I've posted two questions so far about a program I've been developing for what amounts to a fair amount of time. My Ops Leader has suggested that instead of hard-coding the checkboxes for the program, I should attempt to do them dynamically. Let me give a basic program setup and then present my two current trains of thought on the subject. This will get wordy.<br><br>
The program itself is designed to be a way for an end-user to reset their password when they lock themselves out or have forgotten a password. It is to be flexible so it will display all systems the user has access to. For sake of simplicity, consider that the step of gathering users and their system accesses is done. When the page comes up, it needs to generate a series of checkboxes that the user may select one or more so the system can process all those systems in a single go when a button is clicked.<br><br>
The table used for user access (hereafter "USERSYSTEMS") has headers that are named after each system, and simply uses a boolean to signify if they are on that system or not.<br><br>
We are using RFC calls to make these resets happen, and it is setup as follows: Two description fields for each system's RFC call are used, one holding "ITCSC" which is a flag for it being used on this program, and the other is the system's name (such as CP1).<br><br>
Currently I am looking at this and seeing two ways of dynamically generating these boxes.<br><br>
<b>First method</b>: It involves using individual generation of checkboxes. I'm a bit unsure if it is possible to call USERSYSTEMS's field names to populate the text on these or not. Otherwise the RFC table would have to be used. This would likely require a loop and some hefty logic to properly generate all the text boxes.<br><br>
<b>Second method</b>: It would involve using a checkbox group (which I have no experience using yet) that requires a table to populate the checkboxes. If I wanted to go this route I would likely have to generate an internal table out of the RFC and USERSYSTEMS tables for figuring out which boxes would have to be displayed, as well as their text values and dynamically binding that internal table to the checkbox group itself.<br><br>
<b>The Question(s)</b>: If you had to perform this generation of checkboxes, would you use either method, or perhaps even another way of looking at it?<br>As an alternative question, would it be easier in your opinion to stick with my current method of static boxes? That requires adding/removing a box, a few context spots, and some text within two methods if I keep the current process.