Francisco H Tapia
my.lists at verizon.net
Thu May 27 11:11:00 CDT 2004
DWUTKA at marlow.com wrote On 5/26/2004 4:28 PM: >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. > > > What good is data if they can't use it? If your reports don't display it and they (tho not all clients) aren't smart enough to know to scroll or CTRL-A to get the entire field, what does it matter how "big" you make the field. One of the arguments for the max LENGTH was that it would avoid an unnecessary visit to the client side, however you're still going to have visit them to fix a report or a screen. So what's the difference, that they can store it?, what does it matter, to them they will still say it's "CUT OFF" and YES, I have had this occur, maybe not in the last 3 months but I haven't done any contract work in over a year. >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). > > I don't think it to be redundant, just that it derails the "POINT" you're trying to make. Not everyone lives in a bubble and some of us do develop in other engines other than Access, such as MS Sql or mySQL.. and by your logic, I should just use the maximum field length because it's THERE. -- -Francisco