Bulk application of layouts

[IanSaunders]

Hello again.

I've got a project that's very nearly completed, but the client has suddenly decided he doesn't like the section layout of 5-subsections across, and has requested 4 across in the first catalogue level and three across in sub-levels.

I've built the layouts and tested, but I can't face the task of manually applying the them to every section (I think there's nearly 800 of them). Politically, asking the client to do it is a no-no.

Is there something clever I can do in ActinicCatalog.mdb? I'm fairly comfortable with Access, but I can't work out what does what within Actinic. If I can apply the 3-across to every section, I'll willingly apply the 4-across to the outstanding couple of dozen sections.

Any advice?

[leehack]

Use the sectionlevel variable to alter the width of said layout according to what level you are at. If you have an outer container for the layout, adjust the width of that by applying different classes to it, you will then have a layout that adjusts the section layout according to the level it is at. Only other thing you will need to do is strip out the list layout table and use css with floated left containers for the link layout. They will align left and fit themselves in accordingly if you do your maths correctly. About half an hour to do, so will save a lot of time.

[IanSaunders]

That's quite clever. I like that.

I presume I have to force the containers to be the same height so they float neatly, since I can't use a cleared <br> tag at the end of each row if I don't know how many are in the row.

[fergusw]

Is there something clever I can do in ActinicCatalog.mdb? I'm fairly comfortable with Access, but I can't work out what does what within Actinic. If I can apply the 3-across to every section, I'll willingly apply the 4-across to the outstanding couple of dozen sections.
Any advice?

To do this in the database means adding an entry for every non "use parent" entry required for each section into the UserDefinedProperties table
i.e.

the nVariable field in this table would have one of the following 2 values:
65794 -> SectionLinkColumnCount
65816 -> SectionLinkFirstRowColumnCount

with the sValue equal to the column figure and the sContentID = sectionID. nContentLevel = 1 and sStatus = N

Hope this points you in the right direction.

[IanSaunders]

To do this in the database means adding an entry for every non "use parent" entry required for each section into the UserDefinedProperties table
i.e.

the nVariable field in this table would have one of the following 2 values:
65794 -> SectionLinkColumnCount
65816 -> SectionLinkFirstRowColumnCount

with the sValue equal to the column figure and the sContentID = sectionID. nContentLevel = 1 and sStatus = N

Hope this points you in the right direction.

I'm tempted to amend my first post and remove all references to Access... That's truly terrifying!

I'm afraid I'm none the wiser as to how Actinic keeps track of these things, however, I'm now working with Lee's method. I imagine there's no documentation about this stuff, or is there?

[fergusw]

I imagine there's no documentation about this stuff, or is there?

There is a database architecture document floating around, but that is more "terrifying" to understand than even what I just posted.

To automate what you require would involve writing code which follows this logic:

- Loops through every section in the database "Catalog Section" table
- For each section create 2 entries in the UserDefinedProperties table
(one for first row column count, on for subsequent row column count)
- set the sValue for each of these 2 entries to 4 (the required column count)

This could be written as a vbs script or in some other language. You could also write the script to be clever to determine if the section it is working on is a top level section and set that column count to 3.
We write a lot of these types of specific Actinic code routines for people.

Alternatively, Lee's method smacks of the KISS methodology - always the best bet!

[IanSaunders]

I think I kind of get what you mean (although at this point I wouldn't dream of embarking on it), but I wasn't using actinic's column count stuff, so I suspect it doesn't work the way you're thinking.

You're right. I'll stick with KISS.