[AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question.

Unfortunately, since I work for the company, I cannot
fire the company....hehehe  Although many times I
would have liked to.

--- John Colby <jcolby at colbyconsulting.com> wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> You don't 'Peel off" a record.  You can use a SQL
> statement to select a
> record.  Then turn that query into a make table
> query.  Once the query has
> run, run a second query that deletes the record in
> the original table.
> 
> Too bad you have to deal with an idiot.  Doing it
> this way really is bad
> design, and could potentially lead to problems (in a
> multi-user system)
> where two people manage to get the same record
> because it is still there
> while you are doing the make table query.  In fact
> I'd advise you add that
> "in use" flag to the table so that you can set that
> flag to prevent anyone
> else getting the same record.
> 
> I have had to fire clients where the client dictated
> the design to that
> level.  They never know what they are doing, and
> they always blame you when
> it doesn't work as they thought it would.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On
> Behalf Of Frank Tanner
> III
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:29 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access
> Question.
> 
> 
> But.....What happens to the data on the back-end
> wasn't the initial thrust of my question.
> 
> My question was, "How can I peel off one record of
> an
> external table by using it to create a temporary
> local
> table and deleting the record from the back-end
> table?"
> 
> --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ...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
> 
=== message truncated ===