DWUTKA at marlow.com
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Wed May 26 18:28:38 CDT 2004
Ugh. No, that is not where that argument goes. You are building them a tool in Access. Access suffices for their needs. Why limit them even further? If it makes you happy, set the field limit to 254, if you don't want to set it to Access' maximum. The point is, if you think that you'll probably never go over 50, so you set it at 55, to give yourself 5 extra characters, why not go the entire way, IN ACCESS, and just use 255. If you think it is going to be an issue with reporting, or whatever, if someone puts in more then 50 characters, include data validation that tells the user that an Address, or Name, or whatever field it is, of that length may not display properly in some reports. Please stop bringing up the move to SQL server, it's getting very redundant, and it isn't the point I am trying to make (nor JC). Drew -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Francisco H Tapia Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:08 AM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various John W. Colby wrote On 5/25/2004 6:13 PM: >Says you. Limiting text fields without a valid business reason is just >silly (and arrogant as well). (says me) > >I keep asking (and nobody is responding) - whose data is it? Whose database >is it. Who are YOU to TELL the client that 53 characters is all they need? > > > But then that argument goes, why not build their database in something like mySQL or Sql Server (MSDE if you need to) in order to give them a maximum value of 8000 characters? hmm? -- -Francisco -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com