[AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design

ROTFL

Could we get pennants made up for each side?  

Charlotte Foust

-----Original Message-----
From: MartyConnelly [mailto:martyconnelly at shaw.ca] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:45 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design


I was hoping for "Bounders" and "Cads"

John Bartow wrote:

>I guess maybe "nay-sayers" had a negative connotation to it.
>
>Next time I think I'll call the opposing views "Shirts" and "Skins". 
>Maybe we'll get more people participating :o)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of 
>DWUTKA at marlow.com
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:51 PM
>To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
>Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design
>
>
>Thank you.  I've had my opinion changed on this list before too.  And I

>always learn something new in here.  But I was wondering if I was 
>starting to lose it, because I hadn't seen any solid 'evidence' from 
>the nay-sayers. That's all I was asking for.  Reproducable results.  It

>was very easy for me to reproduce the Date Table 'examples', and see 
>that they are definitely more efficient then using calculations in a 
>query, for sorting and searching.
>
>Just haven't seen anything like that with the Lookup topic.  Which 
>isn't surprising though.  It is something that has been mystified in 
>the 'relational database' world.  It's in books, on the web, and thus 
>is defended simply by pointing to other references.  Those are the 
>hardest walls to topple.  It's a paradigm.
>
>Drew
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of John Bartow
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:16 PM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design
>
>
>I started the thread decidely not using lookup properties for the past 
>5 years because of the overwhelming attitude among developers that it 
>shouldn't be used. (IIRC that's when I first read Dev's "10 
>Commandments".)
>
>I had no "side" in this debate other than pointing out weaknesses I saw

>in specific arguments (and being "cutesy" at times) Rarely is someone 
>go to fully switch "sides" in a debate. (So I don't expect everyone to 
>agree with
>me.) I believe that, based on this thread, the people who argued that
it is
>OK to use lookup properties have won the day.
>
>Unless someone comes up with a solid reason why it should never be used

>I will not hesitate to use it again when the situation warrants.
>
>I challenge anyone to use facts to convince me otherwise. In fact I 
>would very much appreciate it. And I'll buy you a few if you can do so!
>
>John "always open to the facts" Bartow
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Charlotte 
>Foust
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:44 PM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design
>
>
>Forget it.  You insist that your opinion carried the day.  Go right 
>ahead and believe it, but don't expect everyone else to agree.
>
>Charlotte Foust
>
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Marty Connelly
Victoria, B.C.
Canada



-- 
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com