How can only one Checkbox can be Selected in Table with Boolean CheckBoxes?

I have an editable ADF table where one of the attributes is a Boolean Checkbox... and stores the value with Y or N.
Is there any way where only one checkbox should be selected at the time of commit ?
For example, in case its an Answers Table to a Single Choice Question of a Questionnaire application, while adding new answers to the table..., the user inserts 3 rows (answers)... then the boolean checkbox for only one of those 3 rows can be checked.
Thanks
DJ

Thanks... I tried it by writing some code ... But it doesn't seem to work. Can you please have a look... and make the changes.
public class checkBean {
public void validateCheck(LaunchEvent launchEvent){
BindingContext bctx1 = BindingContext.getCurrent();
DCDataControl dc1 = bctx1.findDataControl("QuestionnaireAMDataControl");
ApplicationModule service1 = (ApplicationModule)dc1.getDataProvider();
ApplicationModule am1 = service1.findApplicationModule("QuestionnaireAM");
ViewObject vo1 = am1.findViewObject("QuestionVO");
String newValue = (String)vo1.getCurrentRow().getAttribute("QuestionTypeId");
if(newValue.equals("10881")){
System.out.println("Inside single");
BindingContext bctx = BindingContext.getCurrent();
DCDataControl dc = bctx.findDataControl("QuestionnaireAMDataControl");
ApplicationModule service = (ApplicationModule)dc.getDataProvider();
ApplicationModule am = service.findApplicationModule("QuestionnaireAM");
ViewObject vo = am.findViewObject("QuestionResponseVO");
int numRows;
int j=0;
numRows = vo.getRowCount();
String rowValue = "a";
int k = vo.getCurrentRowIndex();
for (int i=0; i<numRows; i++){
rowValue = (String)vo.getCurrentRow().getAttribute("CorrectResponseFlag");
if(rowValue.equals("Y")){
j++;
if(j>1)
System.out.println("same rows exist");
FacesMessage msg = new FacesMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, null, "Two correct respones!");
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().addMessage(null, msg);
k++;
vo.next();
Thanks
DJ

Similar Messages

Why can only one person can read my text mge?

I've try to send a text to serveral people and only one gets to read it and the rest gets a blank text. Why is that?
Thanks for your help

Delights,
Oh no! I know how important it is to have the features on your phone working properly! Let's get this fixed. What device do you have? Is this a group text message that your attempting to send? How many numbers are you including in the group message? I look forward to working with you. Have a great day!
Thanks,
Pamelaf_vzw
Tweet us @vzwsupport

Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.

hi all
i have a table that name is:
TiketsHeader
but i used this code
SELECT TicketsHeaderId, Active, TH.PersonRef,P.Fname + ' ' + P.Lname AS NF, Serial, TicketsCnt, StartSerial, EndSerial, KindDate, StratDate, EndDate,
MonthsRef1,(SELECT * FROM dbo.Months M WHERE M.MonthsId= MonthsRef1 ) AS MonthsName1 , MonthsRef2, MonthsRef3, WeekDaysRef,
PoolTimesRef, TH.Descreption
FROM dbo.TiketsHeader TH
INNER JOIN Person P ON P.PersonId= TH.PersonRef
i see this error:
Msg 116, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.
how to solve it
please help me
Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful and He created the human

SELECT TicketsHeaderId, Active, TH.PersonRef,P.Fname + ' ' + P.Lname AS NF, Serial, TicketsCnt, StartSerial, EndSerial, KindDate, StratDate, EndDate,
MonthsRef1,(SELECT * FROM dbo.Months M WHERE M.MonthsId= MonthsRef1 ) AS MonthsName1 , MonthsRef2, MonthsRef3, WeekDaysRef,
PoolTimesRef, TH.Descreption
FROM dbo.TiketsHeader TH
INNER JOIN Person P ON P.PersonId= TH.PersonRef
A Sub query like this can only return one column, not serveral like here with the star *. Replace the star by one column Name that you want to query.
Olaf Helper
[ Blog] [ Xing] [ MVP]

How to : only one user in a branch can do the batch process at a time ?

dear gurus,
In ADF web application, accessed by multiple branch (20), there is a
batch process to create invoices from orders. There are 3-5 users in a
branch. one user can process about 30 - 50 orders to become
invoices.
Business rule is : In one batch process, each users must produce
invoices with gapless invoice number. e.g : user_1 create 30 invoices
no.001 - 030, user_2 create 40 invoices no.031-070 ... and so on...
So we want to protect that at a time, in one branch, only one user can
do the batch process. User_2 must wait until user_1 is done to start
the process.
We use the table below to maintain the latest invoice number created :
CREATE TABLE doc_number
DOC_TYPE VARCHAR2(6 BYTE) NOT NULL,
BRANCH_CODE VARCHAR2(6 BYTE) NOT NULL,
DOC_NBR NUMBER(12) DEFAULT 0,
CONSTRAINT "DOC_NUMBER_PK" PRIMARY KEY (DOC_TYPE, BRANCH_CODE)
The question is :
I think of locking a spicific row of the doc_number table (select ...
for update wait 10) at the beginning of the batch process stored
procedure.
But what if the session/connection left orphan and the row is lockde
forever before the dba kill it ?
So is there a better approach to limit the user execution of the
process ?
Thank you very much for your help,
Krist

Forget it. See http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:4343369880986.
However, if you are dead set on doing this old fashioned thing of trying to emulate paper invoices from a numbered tablet, you could always just let everyone generate all of their invoices with no invoice number whenever they want, then at some time ( say 21:00 every day), take a lock on the table and apply invoice numbers to all of the records with a null invoice number -- which will take only a few centiseconds at most. And let the users/system print only invoices that have numbers assigned. This way, you pretty much eliminate the concurrency issue of various branches generating invoices only in their time window -- yuk, what an awful way to have to do business.
And completely forget about users or branches having their own range of numbers. That is completely nuts. Your database already knows which branch owns which invoice, right??

Just updated my iphone with iOS 7.0.2 and when I call or people call me, only one party can hear the other. Would you know how to fix this problem? Thanks

just updated my iphone with iOS 7.0.2 and when I call or people call me, only one party can hear the other. Would you know how to fix this problem? Thanks

Hi Apple_Mom,
Thanks for visiting Apple Support Communities.
If you've noticed issues after updating to iOS 7.0.2, you may want to first update to iOS 7.0.3 which was recently released.
iOS: How to update your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4623
If the behavior persists, the troubleshooting steps in this article can help:
iPhone: Can't hear through the receiver or speakers
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1630
Cheers,
Jeremy

Msg 116, Level 16, State 1, Line 6 Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.

Hello,
Can anyone help me?
select year(po.rdata) as 'Ano',
sum(etotal) as 'Valorp' ,
(select year(fo.data),Sum(etotal)
FROM fo (nolock)
where not exists ( select 1 from pl (nolock) where pl.adoc = fo.adoc and pl.cm = fo.doccode )
group by year(fo.data))as 'Valorap'
from po
group by year(po.rdata)
order by year(po.rdata)
Error
Msg 116, Level 16, State 1, Line 6
Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.
Consultora

Hi Prashanth,
select year(po.rdata) as 'Ano',
sum(etotal) as 'Valorp' ,
(select Sum(etotal)
FROM fo (nolock)
where not exists ( select 1 from pl (nolock) where pl.adoc = fo.adoc and pl.cm = fo.doccode )
group by year(fo.data))as 'Valorap'
from po(nolock)
group by year(po.rdata)
order by year(po.rdata)
Gives me the error:
Msg 512, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an expression.
Thanks
Consultora

How do you lock the ipad so only one app can be used

I want to force a student to communicate using an ipad communication app. I want the only thing on the screen to be that one app. How do I lock the app so it is the only one that can be used on the ipad? Is there a way to lock a page? ie when he has navigated to the correct page to prevent the child from exiting and make him make a choice from that page?
Thanks!

You can lock an iPad to a given app via Guided Access:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5509
To try and lock a web browser to a single page you'll need to investigate third-party browsers such as MobiCIP or the McGruff browser and see if they allow you to lock to a single page. Safari in iOS 6 or earlier has no controls and in iOS 7 allows you to restrict to a given site or set of sites but not to a single web page.
Regards.

I want to be the only one who can access my profile, so how to create passwords for profiles (NOT for websites) ?

I want to be the only one who can access my profile, so how to create passwords for profiles (NOT for websites) ?
thanks

Maybe use the portable Firefox version on a USB stick if you want to prevent access to your profile.<br />
Solutions that use an extension can easily be bypassed by starting in [[Safe mode]].<br />
Otherwise you need to locate the Firefox profile folder on an encrypted drive.
See http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/browsers/portable_firefox

Sharing iTunes library/playlist, only one user can run iTunes

Greetings everyone
Just got a new aluminum iMac, setting it up for the wife and kids. From the descriptions here, I have set up several accounts to share a single iTunes library, by creating aliases in each user's iTunes folder that point to the shared library. It seems to work great: I only have to import music ONCE (instead of once for each user), and if one user creates or changes a new playlist, everyone sees it, which is exactly what I wanted.
However, I have run into a small problem, and it is this. Under this setup, with everyone sharing the same library, *only one person can be running iTunes at a time.* If user A is running iTunes and doesn't quit the app when the computer is switched to User B or C, they get the message
----- +"The iTunes Library is locked, on a locked disk, or you do not have write permission for this file."+
----- Switch back to User A, quit iTunes, and then the others can launch iTunes fine (though again, just ONE of them). Same behavior regardless of whether the user is admin or not.
So, is there any way to enable more than one user to run iTunes at once under this shared scenario? I'm thinking iTunes may not allow multiple users to access the library file at once, so it may be necessary to have users quit iTunes or log out before switching accounts. Let me know if there is a workaround or if anyone has gotten this to work....
Thanks in advance!
sno-man

Hi, I just read your post here - I'd like to do exactly what you were able to do, that is, sharing one iTunes library with multiple user accounts on my iMac so that we can both use/add to the same library (I also want to do this with iPhoto, so I'm assuming it's the same process); would you mind quickly telling me how you were able to do this? I've been checking around and can't find a reliable answer. I'd appreciate it - thanks!

HT2506 After updating my system to Mountain Lion 10.8.2 I can no longer view videos on Facebook or other sites. The only one I can view videos on is youtube. I have downloaded Adobe Flash player and still no luck. I cannot even open Preview on my computer

After updating my system to Mountain Lion 10.8.2 I can no longer view videos on Facebook or other sites. The only one I can view videos on is youtube. I have downloaded Adobe Flash player and still no luck. I cannot even open Preview on my computer anymore. Any ideas would be helpful thanks

Merely clicking the Preview icon in the Dock doesn't cause it to open anything, unless you had one or more windows open the last time it quit.
If you're sure you've installed the latest version of Flash, take each of the following steps that you haven't already tried. After each step, relaunch Safari and test.
1. If you're getting a "blocked plug-in" error, triple-click the line below to select it:
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins Right-click or control-click the highlighted text and select
Services ▹ Open
from the contextual menu. A folder should open. If there is more than one item in the folder with the words "Flash Player" (not "flashplayer") in the name, open the respective Info windows, check the version numbers, and delete all except the latest. You may be prompted for your login password. If you get the same error after doing that, re-download and reinstall Flash. Download it from this page:
Adobe - Install Adobe Flash Player
Never download a Flash update from anywhere else.
2. If you get a "missing plug-in" error, select
Safari ▹ Preferences... ▹ Security
from the Safari menu bar and check the box marked Enable plug-ins.
3. Select
Safari ▹ Preferences... ▹ Extensions
from the Safari menu bar. If any extensions are installed, disable them.
4. In the Safari preference window, select
Privacy ▹ Remove All Website Data
Close the window. Then select
 ▹ System Preferences… ▹ Flash Player ▹ Advanced
and click Delete All. Close the preference pane.

ITunes 90 day lock out on iMac - only one AppleID can use a Mac at any one time?

Just found out, the hard way, about Apple's patently ridiculous "90 Day Lockout" policy on iTunes (Match, Purchases download and pretty much ALL the useful features).
Apparently, at least according to Support - who feigned surprise that this was an issue - if you blow £1,200 on an iMac to be used by two people in your home and have paid Apple an extra £25 a head for iTunes Match, you're terribly gullible. And stupid. And a potential music thief.
The real problem is that Apple, probably in a bid to secure record label agreement to iTunes Match and in a vain attempt to curb unlawful music sharing, has decided that NO MORE THAN ONE APPLE ID can be associated with a machine ID at any one time, for iTunes purposes.
This is fine on iPhone, iPod Touch and even iPad. Those are hardware that only one person can use at a time - there is no "multi-user" capability.
Macs, though, are a different matter. In Apple World we're all filthy rich and each member of a household is expected to own a separate Mac machine (iMac, MacBook Pro or Air) to be able to use the functionality and music they've paid for in iTunes and via Match.
If you're stupid or poor or just think a Mac per person in a household is consumerism gone mad, you are stuffed.
In our case we bought an iMac. Set up two separate and distinct User IDs and one of us set up iTunes and activated iTunes Match.
Next day the other went into their User account, set up iTunes and then activated iTunes Match. A very very vague message popped up alluding to "transferring an Apple ID to this machine" and referencing inability to use this AppleID on another machine for 90 days. That seemed OK. The AppleID had been associated on an old Compaq netbook for iTunes, so the assumption was that it was that association that was being transferred to the iMac.
WRONG!
What had happened was that the second person to sign in to the iMac and set up their TOTALLY SEPERATE AppleID on a TOTALLY SEPERATE iTunes Match library and account had effectively locked out the first user from their iTunes account.
So, if you're a family with individual iTunes accounts and iTunes Match don't bother with Apple Mac products. For the cash you spend on one mac product that only one of you will be able to use iTunes on EVERY 90 DAYS, you'd be better off buying separate, higher spec Windo$e laptops to sync with.
Apple has really really fouled up on this.
Support initially justified this lock out policy as being to prevent Johnny Fileshare from zipping round to his mate's house, logging into iTunes with his AppleID on his mates PC or Mac and downloading his paid for iTunes library onto his mates Mac as a gift.
Just how likely such a random outburst of philanthropy at the expense of record labels would be is beyond me.
During a near two hour call with support (use the Call Me function - at least the call is free) eventually, after an escalation, the tech agreed that the 90 days AppleID lock was pointless as Apple themselves publish details in their knowledge base on how to circumvent music sharing restrictions and combine iTunes libraries - even helpfully including details of how to put said combined iTunes library on a memory stick. Johnny Fileshare can then nip round his mates house and share his iTunes content with his mate until the cows come home.
Even worse, Apple even allow you to burn to CD a combined iTunes library up to FIVE TIMES!
But, when it comes to logging into your own iTunes account on a shared Mac? Forget it matey. You'll steal music and can't be trusted.
Well FU too, Apple.
But wait! You may think you're OK because you weren't foolish enough to hand over £25 for iTunes Match...
BEWARE: THE 90 DAY LOCKOUT IS ACTIVATED THE SECOND A USER ON A MAC ACTIVATES EITHER:
1. Automatic downloads, or
2 iTunes Match
OR IF THEY HAVE THE TEMERITY TO:
1. Check previous purchases
THIS RENDERS ITUNES AS A PRODUCT/SERVICE WORSE THAN USELESS ON SHARED MACS.
We have 82 days to wait for one of us to regain access to the library that cost us a fortune to build in iTunes.
1 Week old iMac is being boxed up & returned to Apple Store.
Two high spec non Apple laptops being bought as a replacement. The change to be spent on petrol or pasties - which ever the UK is running out of most...

Yes, I am having this problem because I have 2 Apple IDs/iTunes accounts. Mind you, I don't want 2 accounts but Apple forced me to make a new apple ID when they started requiring email addresses as user ID. This was the first big mistake that Apple made. Their second mistake was not allowing people to simply merge these accounts. Had they not made these mistakes initially, many people would still only have one Apple account/ID. Some bloke ought to lose his job over that.
However, I understand this isn't the same problem as having multiple household members using the same computer. It seems that Apple could figure this all out by either authorizing multiple users at the time of purchase, or allowing a handful of users to download to one computer. After all, if I bought a hard copy of a music CD, I could certainly allow my son or daughter to listen to it or download it to their computer. Next thing you know, I'll have to sign a release saying that I am the only person that uses my iPod.
I am also returning not just one but 2 brand new Mac computers ($4500 coming back from Apple to my wallet) because I am so fed up with the poor customer service response that Apple has given this problem. Not only did they take a ton of my money for iTUnes songs, but then they restricted my access to those songs. I think it's criminal and I wouldn't be surprised if this issue ended up as a class action wrongdoing suit. I have to admit I've considered talking to a lawyer about it myself. I am so sick of large monopolizing companies thinking that they can treat their customers poorly and expect us to sit back and take it. The good news is that this is a free country and I can choose to throw my money at any old company I choose..........Toshiba here I come.

Only one computer can connect to internet at a time!

When my modem is connected, I plug one ethernet line into one computer. That computer sometime has access to the internet, but sometimes it doesn't work, and another computer is able to access the internet. Each computer uses different cables. When one computer has internet, other computers cannot access the internet if we decide to connect via another cable. Using the same cable doesn't work, also. Sometimes, all computers cannot access the internet.
For example, this computer I am using to write this currently has internet. However, when I unplug this computer's ethernet line from the modem and connect the other computer's ethernet line into the modem, it cannot connect. (Safari cannot connect to the internet.) Network diagnosis has a GREEN light next to "Built-In Ethernet," YELLOW for "Network Settings," and RED for the rest (ISP, Internet, Server)
Lastly, in the Network Status in System Preferences, Built-In Ethernet is YELLOW and says that it has a self-assigned IP address. However, I did not self assign the IP and is set to 'Automatic.'
Thank you so much!

Do I understand this correctly? You have one modem with one ethernet jack on it. Only one computer can have access to the internet at a time, depending on who you plug in to the modem? If the computers have wireless capability, you don't have a wireless access point or wireless router, so you can't take advantage of the computers' wireless. You don't have a wired hub or more than one ethernet jack on the modem nor do you have a stand-alone router (that plugs into the single ethernet jack on the modem) with multiple ethernet jacks, so multiple computers cannot connect to the internet simultaneously.
If this is the case, then when you turn on a computer that isn't plugged in, since there is no router there for it to obtain an address from (I'm assuming your computers are set up for DHCP), it is going to try to create/join it's own ad-hoc network and give itself a self-assigned address beginning with 169.x.x.x. (If you had a multi-port hub or wireless access point, with no routing capabilities, this is how you could set up an isolated network of computers without access to the outside world but with access to each other).
Meanwhile, your modem is either giving the plugged-in computer a 192.x.x.x or a 10.x.x.x address (unless you changed stuff in it) or it is passing your public IP address presented to it by your ISP straight through to your plugged-in computer (that was plugged when when you booted up).
So when you unplug one and plug in another, the network settings don't match. If you unplugged one and plugged in the other and then booted up the other one, I would expect to see a working internet connection at that point.
If my original assumption of your home configuration is in error, please describe how you are set up, e.g., internet<-->modem<-->router<-->computers or whatever. Maybe do that anyways, even if my assumption is accurate. Describe whether your modem employs NAT or is in bridge mode? Does it have a DHCP server and is it enabled or is it set up for static IP on your home LAN? Describe whether your router, if not built into the modem, employs NAT or is in bridge mode? Does it have a DHCP server and is it enabled or is it set up for static IP on your home LAN? How are your network settings configured in your computers? DHCP or other (what)? A visit to your modem and/or router configuration pages, to see what the external WAN address (a.k.a. public IP address) (at least the first one or two or three octets), and what do your computers' sys prefs IP address, router address, and DNS server addresses say they are, would be helpful, too (you can safely divulge publicly full 192.x.x.x, 10.x.x.x, and 169.x.x.x addresses because they are not routable). I don't know about other folks reading this, but I would need to know quite a bit more about your home network architecture and configuration.

Want my JFrame to be the *only* one that can end the program when closed

Hi all,
I have an application that is essentially a launcher for other applications -- it's a holder to allow us to demo our work and other Java examples (not necessarily our work). The launcher will either run methods to launch an application or will find a class's main method and invoke that.
In all cases, the other applications open up their own JFrames, separate from my launcher (this is a good thing). The problem is that, in general, the other JFrames are set to EXIT_ON_CLOSE. This means that if the user closes the second window, everything will close.
Is there anyway to prevent this from happening? I'd like either a way to say that my JFrame is the only one that can exit the program when closed, or to say globally that JFrames can't exit on close, and then re-work my initial frame so that it is still able to exit.
Note that changing all the other applications so that they do not include the EXIT_ON_CLOSE line is not an option (several of the applications we have the right to use, but not the right to modify, for instance).
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Sam

Darryl.Burke wrote:
I have a similar launcher application and this is how I tackled the issue....
Window[] windows = Window.getWindows();
This seems like a great work-around. The only problem is that Window.getWindows() is only 6.0, and unfortunately I can only assume 5.0. I can't see another method in the Window class that will return unowned windows -- is there another method that you know of?
Edit: I found I can use Frame.getFrames() instead, but unfortunately I've discovered this doesn't solve my problem. One of the applications is listening to window closing and is calling System.exit(0) itself, and is not using EXIT_ON_CLOSE as I previously thought. So I think that launching a new JVM may be the only option.... Any advice on how to do this? I'm a little stuck with the ProcessBuilder stuff above.
>
edit In future (not this time), Swing related questions should be posted in the [Swing forum|http://forums.sun.com/forum.jspa?forumID=57]
I guess I was thinking this as a process-oriented question (I had already been thinking of the "different JVM" tactic), but the other option was to think of it as a pure-swing problem, like your solution above. Guess I should have just cross-posted -- everyone loves that! ;-)
Edited by: Asbestos on Dec 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Hello Anybody, I have a question. Can any of you please suggest me how to make an xml file from the database table with all the rows? Note:- I am having the XSD Schema file and the resulted XML file should be in that XSD format only.

Hello Anybody, I have a question. Can any of you please suggest me how to make an xml file from the database table with all the records?
Note:- I am having the XSD Schema file and the resulted XML file should be in that XSD format only.

The Oracle documentation has a good overview of the options available
Generating XML Data from the Database
Without knowing your version, I just picked 11.2, so you made need to look for that chapter in the documentation for your version to find applicable information.
You can also find some information in XML DB FAQ

I need to host a Shared PDF on SharePoint. If it is on SharePoint can only one person comment at a time? I know documents have to be checked out when using SharePoint. I need multiple users to be able to comment in real time and see comments in real time.

I need to host a Shared PDF on SharePoint 2010. If it is on SharePoint can only one person comment at a time? I know documents have to be checked out when using SharePoint. I need multiple users to be able to comment in real time and see comments in real time. Is this possible?

try here:
http://www.bbb.org
File a complaint with them. Verizon will call you to fix the blunder.
But remember it is always up to the customer to insure what they are getting and what it costs. Don't trust the word of a sales person who makes their living on getting that sale. Lies, deceit or false promises will be and have been used by sales people for thousands of years.
Good Luck

How can only one Checkbox can be Selected in Table with Boolean CheckBoxes?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for