Who's On?

	Membership:
	Latest: Saef
	Past 24 Hours: 0
	Prev. 24 Hours: 0
	Overall: 5226

	People Online:
	Visitors: 228
	Members: 0
	Total: 228

Name	Points
Greg Moeller	4184
David Williams	3349
JonA	3291
Kat V	2984
Woozy	1973
Jimmy Chiu	1883
Kwane McNeal	1437
Ragu Raghavan	1372
Roger French	1315
mark.cook	1244

change of field numbers for MS Addins and .uwf files

6 Replies

0 Subscribed to this topic

68 Subscribed to this forum

Sort:

Author

Messages

Phil Simon

Veteran Member

Posts: 135

4/22/2009 4:32 PM

Hello

I'll probably have to open a case with Lawson but I'm hoping that there's a solution to this. On 8.0.3, we have quite a few upload files (UWFs) that are obviously linked to field numbers. These field numbers, however, have changed aross the board on 9 and Excel isn't liking the 'old' file definitions in the new TEST 9 product line. Aside from rewriting all of these from scratch, is there anything that can be done to get 9 to recognize 8.0.3 UWFs?

Thanks.

Phil Simon

Veteran Member

Posts: 135

4/22/2009 4:52 PM

Lawson says that you can't but our community is smart.

kadkins

Advanced Member

Posts: 23

4/22/2009 4:54 PM

Phil,

Have you opened the .UWF file and modified the product line? You can open these in Notepad and change the string info there. Try that and see if it works.

Thanks,

Kyle

Phil Simon

Veteran Member

Posts: 135

4/22/2009 5:09 PM

Thanks, Kyle. If the field #s had remained constant, then that might work. Since they haven't (and they're not in a usable/flat format), it probably makes sense to just recreate them. How Lawson changes field numbers is beyond me. While not as inimical as changing field and table names, I'm still baffled about why they'd do this.

John Henley

Posts: 3353

4/22/2009 5:19 PM

You can do manually/carefully by editing the .uwf. I have found it easier to just re-create them.

John Henley

Posts: 3353

4/22/2009 5:34 PM

What they really should do is store the COBOLish name instead of the f number.

Phil Simon

Veteran Member

Posts: 135

4/22/2009 6:59 PM

No argument here.