[AccessD] Cascade-delete (was: Estimating Help)

I come a bit late to this thread (but that's not new for me).  I've tried to
follow it but it ain't always been easy.  I am using cascade delete in an
app for a client who rents audio visual equipment and am wondering if this
is good design runs afoul of anybody's catechism on the subject:

The Rental Agreement header has one to many relationship with several table
:
     Equipment to be rented (with one-to-one with a CheckIn/CheckOut table)
     Items sold at retail
     Labor
     Sub-Rental Header (with its own detail records

might be more - I forget.  So in order to delete a rental agreement (which
they want to do from time to time) either they have to go in and delete all
the detail records first, or I give them cascade delete.  They opted for
cascade delete.

I do give them a very clear warning message about what's going to be deleted
and have them confirm.

What say you all to this?

Rocky Smolin
Beach Access Software

P.S. I though everybody was used to Colby's rhetorical style by this time.
He's been quite - well relatively - civil on this subject. Try him on the
phrases 'unbound form' and 'natural key'.  From a distance, of course. :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Colby" <jcolby at colbyconsulting.com>
To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Cascade-delete (was: Estimating Help)


> Aww grow up guys.
>
> I never said never.  I stated very plainly that if everyone has the right
to
> delete the records then it doesn't matter.  John then states (finally, in
> the last email) that this is the case.  So it doesn't matter (in this
case).
>
> So where exactly is the beef?
>
> I don't give a rat's patuty if you turn on cascade delete for every table,
> every time, in every database.  To search around struggling to find
exactly
> the instance where it is useful is a waste of everyone's time.  If it
works
> for you, and you don't get fired when records disappear who really cares.
> In any event, you can always blame the user after all.  "Hey, I warned
> them".
>
> In any case, I certainly don't care, it isn't my database, nor my job on
the
> line.  And I am not getting my users fired for not doing my job correctly.
>
> Sorry if that was "derisive" but really, look at what I said.  I was very
> very VERY clear in my statements.  And I see no reason to modify any of
> them.
>
> John W. Colby
> Colby Consulting
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>