[AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question.

"They are adamant" Frank

...why I love being an independent ...I can enjoy the sight of colbyizing
such "adamant" beings, dropping them into thin air sans parachute :)

...seriously Frank, you are building a trap for yourself here ...no matter
how much "simpler" you think it will be to code the separate tables, I
assure you that it isn't ...one table with status fields feeding multiple
forms through queries ...the cbf for such is enormously less convoluted than
trying to move records from one table to others dependent upon criteria
...to get any kind of reliability you'd have to use transaction processing
and that can be a bear even for experienced coders ...otoh, using queries to
read/update a single table is simplicity itself ...not to mention the much
greater data reliability :(

William Hindman
<http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Tanner III" <pctech at mybellybutton.com>
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question.


> As I see it the worst possible case scenario is that
> one record could become corrupt if the front-end gets
> whacked.  Because the front-end would only be,
> temporarily I might add, storing one record.  Ever.
>
> Unfortunately, I was given a specific set of criteria
> as to how they wanted the back-end to be handled, and
> I cannot deviate from that.  So, given that I am
> trying to come up with the easiest, and most modular
> way of handling it.
>
> They are adamant about having one back-end table that
> contains all of the records to be pulled from, one
> table that contains the records that have been
> contacted and have answered the questions, one table
> that contains the "not-interested" responses, and one
> table that contains the "call me back later"
> responses.  I am not privvy to why they want it that
> way, nor what they are going to do with it once it is
> complete.
>
> --- "Heenan, Lambert" <Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com> wrote:
> > I'd suggest you look at adding a "CheckedOut Status"
> > field to the original
> > back-end table, and also a "Who checked it out"
> > field. Doing it this way
> > means you never need to move the data from table to
> > table, instead just
> > change the values in those two fields. In addition,
> > there's no danger of
> > data getting lost when and if the user's front end
> > copy gets trashed /
> > corrupted.
> >
> > Lambert
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Tanner III
> > [SMTP:pctech at mybellybutton.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:41 AM
> > > To: Database Advisors
> > > Subject: [AccessD] Yes.  Another Silly Access
> > Question.
> > >
> > > Ok....Here we go.  Hang on to your
> > bloomers....hehehe
> > >
> > > I am using a sort of "check out" system in order
> > to
> > > ensure that duplicates are not contacted.  It
> > works
> > > like this...
> > >
> > > I have a back-end database table that is my master
> > > table of records.  I want my people to click a
> > button
> > > called "Get Information" that will read the first
> > > available record into a "make table query" to
> > create a
> > > temporary local front-end table and delete it from
> > the
> > > master table in the back-end.  Sort of like
> > checking
> > > out a book from the library.  Once this record is
> > > pulled from the master table in the back-end, it
> > will
> > > never go back into that back-end table.  it will
> > go
> > > into other back-end tables, depending on the
> > > disposition of the information.  Sorta like
> > this...
> > >
> > > Get Information pulls "next available record" from
> > > tbl_customer_info.  Preferrably via a make table
> > > query, and stuffs it into a front-end table called
> > > tmp_customer_info and completely removes said
> > record
> > > from the back-end tbl_customer_info table.
> > >
> > > Once the local work has been done it will be
> > "saved"
> > > to a different back-end table and the local table,
> > > tmp_customer_information, will be cleared/deleted.
> >
> > > Thus the need for some sort of make table type of
> > > query.  Then the next time that a user clicks the
> > Get
> > > Information, this process starts all over again.
> > >
> > > I'm kind of at a loss as to how to do this.  Any
> > > ideas?  Thank you.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AccessD mailing list
> > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > >
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com