Re-factored Matrix Forms in 2009 Sp1

generic

Hello

Has somebody seen an example form that I can look in Cronus for refactored matrix forms?
Thanks.

kine

Look at page 113 - G/L Budget.

generic

thank you, I will check it out.

generic

I've looked and it looks good. I'm curios why they haven't fixed other matrix forms like 5225

kine

I think that there was only time to refactor the matrixboxes which are primary focused to data entering, not to data reading...

generic

LOL, they had a whole year.

DenSter

When will you ever understand that not everyone has the same priorities ](*,)

kine

generic wrote:

LOL, they had a whole year.

You really think that all what they did was to refactor matrixes?

generic

kine wrote:

generic wrote:

LOL, they had a whole year.

You really think that all what they did was to refactor matrixes?

I'm sure they did. They modified about 1500 objects.

They have basically doubled their work right now. Maintain Forms and Pages.
Maintain regular reports and Layouts for them as well.

The sad part is that developer's work gets to double as well.
I guess everybody has to wait till the classic client is no longer supported.

That's another 3 years. Talking about Priorities. :whistle:

kine

You really do not know what's going on. Pages are not maintained in any way. They are fully created by the transformation toolkit from forms. Only forms are maintained and the transformation is configured once, than any change in form is automatically transformed to page just by running the toolkit. That some object is marked as changed, tells you nothing about work which was done. It could be only changed property or totally rewrited object...

You are doing conclusions too quickly... ;-)

generic

Adding a Page Wizard to SP1 in that case is a pointless feature.

kine

No, again, you do not know how partners are maintaining some functionality... ;-) Page wizard is for partners... but you were talking about Microsoft... :whistle:

generic

Explain to me how Partners maintain functionality since I don't know.

If they are creating the form and pages separately, that means it doubles their work.

Second Using Transformation Toolkit also doubles your work. The default pages that come out are so ugly, that you have spend extra on getting it right.

And it's not just about getting the forms and the pages, you have to also test it and make sure they both work the same on both clients. Again double amount of work.

kine

1) Some partners are maintaining only pages, because the functionality is only for RTC
2) Maintaining Forms AND Pages is doubling the work, but it means you have in fact two products, not one...
3) Transformation is not doubling your work, you need to set it when you begin, than you only fine-tune it.
4) Default pages - ugly? Why? Are default forms ugly too? Default reports are ugly, yes, but partners have own reports with nicer design.
5) Testing - yes, you have two separate products, thus two testing if you want both working correctly.

But, why it is wrong to do more work, when the result is that you have two applications? If you want only one, you have same amount of work, if you want both, you need to do more work, but it doesn't mean that it is doubled each time...

DenSter

Let it go Kamil, you are not going to change his mind

generic

kine wrote:

1) Some partners are maintaining only pages, because the functionality is only for RTC

Thus removing 90 percent of their customer based from using the product. Very smart.

2) Maintaining Forms AND Pages is doubling the work, but it means you have in fact two products, not one...

LOL I don't hear anywhere in any Marketing document that there are two NAV products. They are one product.

3) Transformation is not doubling your work, you need to set it when you begin, than you only fine-tune it.

Yes it doubles.

4) Default pages - ugly? Why? Are default forms ugly too? Default reports are ugly, yes, but partners have own reports with nicer design.

Upgrading Reports from what I heard is suppose to be 8-16 hours per report object. That's not doubling, That's insanity. It usually takes 15-30 minutes the most. Imagine upgrading 100 reports.

5) Testing - yes, you have two separate products, thus two testing if you want both working correctly.

It's one product. RTC is not mature enough to be used by customers and the classic db will be discontinued in a year or 2.

For new customers it's easy now after sp1 release to recommend RTC, but for existing client, it doubles the amount of work. Many modification do not work on RTC and upgrading reports is too cost prohibitive.
If I were an existing customer. I would ride on classic client to it's death and then see if it's feasible to upgrade.
Most existing customer are sufficient and run on classic client and their partner have done mods to get them by.
Their main issue is growing databases size and performance, and very little has been done in that area.
So any customer that is doing the upgrade for a shiny GUI is shooting themselves in the foot.

generic

DenSter wrote:

Let it go Kamil, you are not going to change his mind

Maybe you should go and help this guy instead of posting useless comments.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=36883

kine

DenSter wrote:

Let it go Kamil, you are not going to change his mind

I am not trying that, I know that it is not possible... :-)

But I have fun when writing these posts...

DenSter

kine wrote:

I have fun when writing these posts...

I can tell

generic

You haven't responded to my last post.

As for a conversation, it has two sides and I don't see you admitting or changed your mind to anything points I have brought up.

My point is that the work is almost doubled.

Your point and I guess you agree is that it's two product so naturally there is more work to be done.

Well RTC "product" is not ready to be used alone, and you need both products.

To prove my point. You mentioned Page 133 matrix form, which isn't really a matrix form but a form with filtered subPage. It was built only for the purpose of running Matrix on RTC. But guess what in order to build it, MS built the form and subform in the classic client.

RTC is marketing fluff until it gets ready for existing clients and that's 5 years away...

generic

lol I just put a wrong date on the datefilter and guess what I received.

Alex_Chow

Yogesh, I don't understand why you're so irritated all the time. I do agree with you to certain extent that the release of RTC and NAV2009 is not as smooth as it should be. I'm not a huge fan of maintaining both RTC and classic forms and reports.

As kine said, for a new implementation, you would need to decide whether or not you will implement RTC or the classic client. This way, you'll only need to support one. The implementor will of course need to adjust his/her training method differently depending on which client is used.

For the complaints and whines you have, there's nothing anyone on this forum can do about it. You should get your company (assuming your company is large enough) to direct the concerns to your PAM and/or to Microsoft directly. Make a case to Microsoft of why it's inefficient instead of jacking threads and turn it into something simliar to "my God is better than your God" debate.

If you can't rally enough people to support your cause, then that means there's nothing wrong with what MSFT is doing and something is wrong about your assumptions about NAV and what MSFT should do.

generic

I'm sorry if I sound irritated. I'll try to be nicer and more constructive. :P

BTW this is the first time I see something that you are not a huge fan of.

DenSter

The only reasons why trolls come back is because people feed them. You stop feeding the trolls, they will go away

Alex_Chow

generic wrote:

I'm sorry if I sound irritated. I'll try to be nicer and more constructive. :P

BTW this is the first time I see something that you are not a huge fan of.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of things with RTC. It's not a secret based on some of the older threads I've posted.

I don't think it's as efficient as the classic client, I think the time to implement will take longer, it's not as user friendly, it's slow as hell. But then I remembered, these were the exact same complaints I had when I was forced to switch from DOS to Windows.

kine

Alex Chow wrote:

generic wrote:

I'm sorry if I sound irritated. I'll try to be nicer and more constructive. :P

BTW this is the first time I see something that you are not a huge fan of.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of things with RTC. It's not a secret based on some of the older threads I've posted.

I don't think it's as efficient as the classic client, I think the time to implement will take longer, it's not as user friendly, it's slow as hell. But then I remembered, these were the exact same complaints I had when I was forced to switch from DOS to Windows.

I think it is same for each "new" application, same for Vista, same for NAV 2009, same for first Win Navision etc. But each time there must be some first step, which will be followed by addin features and make things smoother. Yes, in short term it could be something bad, in a long term, it is going to be better...

David_Singleton

Alex Chow wrote:

Yogesh, I don't understand why you're so irritated all the time.

Alex,

this guy is not Yogesh, well at least he is not, as he claims, the Yogesh Lahoti that knows me. Generic is simply a liar and a troll nothing more nothing less. I spoke with Yogesh and he knows nothing about this guy.