William Hindman
wdhindman at bellsouth.net
Mon Oct 27 14:14:24 CST 2003
...well you're stuck ...me, I'd be out the door ...but then I have that choice :)))) 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 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question. > Unfortunately, in this case, yes. Apparently she has > special needs for each of the tables being seperate. > When I ask her why, I get the "not your concern or > department, do it the way you were requested" answer. > > --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote: > > ...and if you went to your boss and told him that > > the proposed design would > > almost certainly result in more problems, not less? > > ...but that there is a > > much simpler way to do it that won't ...most Sr VPs > > don't get there by > > failing idiot detection tests :) > > > > 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 2:30 PM > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > Question. > > > > > > > In this case, I'm not the inflexible one. The > > > Marketing department is. > > > > > > And since their boss is my boss, I lose....hehe > > > > > > Not all of us network engineers are inflexible. I > > am > > > a firm believer in there being more than one way > > to > > > skin a cat. > > > > > > --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> > > wrote: > > > > ...nah ...I was frowning at what I kindly refer > > to > > > > as a "notwork" type > > > > design! ...sorry Frank but I go round and round > > with > > > > network engineers all > > > > too frequently ...I'd rather take on reworking a > > > > design by a newbie than one > > > > done by a network type ...most newbies can be > > > > reasoned with! :))))))))) > > > > > > > > William Hindman > > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want > > > > liberty in your lifetime? > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com> > > > > To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem > > > > solving'" > > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:53 PM > > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a reason you have a big frown after > > > > thinking I was on the Mark! > > > > > <evilgrin> > > > > > > > > > > Again I concur. The only reason I can think > > of, > > > > off of the top of my > > > > head, > > > > > for 'moving' records around, is if you > > actually > > > > have mobile databases. > > > > Even > > > > > then, you would still want a 'master copy' > > sitting > > > > there, in case one of > > > > the > > > > > mobile ones crashed. I guess that's half > > > > replication! <grin> > > > > > > > > > > Drew > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: William Hindman > > > > [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net] > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:07 PM > > > > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem > > > > solving > > > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly > > Access > > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...I'm sorry Frank but this doesn't sound like > > > > much of a "reason" at all > > > > > ...you're violating data normalization rules > > all > > > > over the place and > > > > creating > > > > > tables where a simple flag field and query > > would > > > > be much more apropos ...I > > > > > realize that you may not control things as > > much as > > > > you'd like but this > > > > > sounds like something a network engineer would > > > > build rather than a > > > > database > > > > > designer ...I thought Drew was on the mark > > before > > > > and even more so now > > > > :(((( > > > > > > > > > > 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 12:55 PM > > > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly > > Access > > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the back-end tables are going to be > > > > accessed > > > > > > by several people at once and we want to > > avoid > > > > ANY > > > > > > possibility of duplication. > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason why we're moving them to > > different > > > > tables > > > > > > after processing is for marketing to keep > > track > > > > of > > > > > > different functions based upon the data in > > > > tables > > > > > > specific to certain criteria. IE. > > Customers > > > > that > > > > > > fill out a questionnaire go into one table, > > > > customers > > > > > > that decline to go into another table, and > > > > customers > > > > > > that would like to answer the questionnaire > > > > later go > > > > > > into yet another table. > > > > > > > > > > > > The front-end itself has to be as generic as > > > > possible > > > > > > yet cover all contingencies based upon what > > > > someone is > > > > > > doing at a particular given point in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Just curious why you would want to > > physically > > > > 'move' > > > > > > > the data, instead of > > > > > > > just adding a field to track the 'status' > > of > > > > it. > > > > > > > You could have a byte > > > > > > > field where 0 is 'new', 1 is 'in use' and > > > > other > > > > > > > numbers could represent > > > > > > > where the data 'ends up' as you put it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Frank Tanner III > > > > > > > [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:41 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 > > > === message truncated === > > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com