Again Fixed Number of Records Problem Â

[2006 IR Open Dicussion]

By: mafroing - mafroing

Again Fixed Number of Records Problem Â

2006-01-10 03:23

Hi, guys, wasup?Â

Â

now, I am encountering a new problem dealing with the displaying fixed number of records per page:Â

Â

Actually the problem could be solved by applying "Group" and its correct Expression difinition, HOWEVER, when the number of records is quit large, the group of records still overflow to another new page:Â

For Instance: Â

10 records / page could be faultless displayed;Â

but 40 records / page overflows.Â

Â

Is there a way to adjust the field (shrink or enlarge), in order to constrain the number of records per page can be really fixed??Â

Â

THanks a lot!!!!

 

 

 

 

By: Teodor Danciu - teodord

RE: Again Fixed Number of Records Problem Â

2006-01-10 04:52

Â

Hi,Â

Â

Have you tried using a dummy group that has noÂ

header or footer but breaks every 10 records andÂ

starts a new page each time?Â

You can see something similar in theÂ

/demo/samples/jasper sample where we have a groupÂ

that breaks every 5 records.Â

Â

I hope this helps.Â

TeodorÂ

 

 

 

 

By: mafroing - mafroing

RE: Again Fixed Number of Records Problem Â

2006-01-10 09:04

HI, Teodor, Thanks for the kind Reply, but the problem is not with fixed SMALL number of records per page, this I have solved with the Group.Â

Â

The problem is: when the number of records is quit large, there will be overflow of the records to the next new page, e.g. when I expect 40 records per page, there will be only 30 according to my layout, and the rest are displayed onto the next page.Â

Â

Is it possible to shrink the text fields or fonts or whatsoever, so that 40 records can still be printed on one page??Â

Â

THanks Again!

 

 

 

 

By: Teodor Danciu - teodord

RE: Again Fixed Number of Records Problem Â

2006-01-11 01:53

Â

Hi,Â

Â

So I guess what you're saying is that you needÂ

to make those 40 records fit only one page notÂ

matter what.Â

I'm afraid there is no way to achieve that.Â

Or at least not a simple way.Â

Â

Thanks,Â

TeodorÂ