[AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size

Yes, I concur.  Plus, isn't allowing Jet to force a field size sloppy
programming, instead of programming a proper data validation routine? ;)

Drew

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	William Hindman [SMTP:wdhindman at bellsouth.net]
	Sent:	Monday, December 05, 2005 7:51 PM
	To:	Access Developers discussion and problem solving
	Subject:	Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field
Size

	...dearest Charlotte ...the question posed was "my practice has been
to 
	default to 255 unless there was a specific
	need to define a smaller one, since with Jet, afaik, you pay no
penalty for 
	doing so" ...and you suggested that was sloppy programming ...I of
course 
	disagree ...as do others here of long standing.

	...as to why I would include a field when I don't know its length,
I'm 
	pleased to see that there are some so prescient as to be able to
read not 
	only their client's present mind but his future as well ...I do try
but they 
	tend to use their mind shields against me, eh :)

	William

	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: "Charlotte Foust" <cfoust at infostatsystems.com>
	To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" 
	<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
	Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 6:15 PM
	Subject: Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size


	>I do go on, and I'll keep going on. ;-}  If you don't know what the
	> field will be used for, why include it at all?  Yes, fields like
address
	> may very well need to be 255 because they *are* a variable length.
You
	> know perfectly well that I was talking about simply defaulting all
	> fields to 255, not about allowing specific fields to be that
length for
	> a purpose.
	>
	> I'm not the only one who does go on ....
	>
	> Charlotte Foust
	>
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
	> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William
	> Hindman
	> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:36 AM
	> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
	> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size
	>
	>
	> "that it's sloppy programming and suggests that you haven't really
	> thought out the design of the table." Charlotte
	>
	> ...lol ...how you do go on! ...if I'm absolutely certain of the
field's
	> content then I'll size it appropriately and validate the data
...and my
	> table design tends toward a high degree of normalization so that
I'm not
	>
	> overly concerned about record size, although it is a legitmate
	> consideration
	> ...but, and this is where we may differ, if I have name, address,
et al
	> type
	> fields where the data length is unknown, I prefer to default them
to 255
	>
	> rather than establishing artificial limitations for the very
reason that
	>
	> Rocky is running into ...if the guesstimate turns out to be wrong
it can
	> be
	> a rpita to fix once in distribution.
	>
	> ...the only problem I've seen so far is the client using tabs
within the
	>
	> field and I now routinely prevent that.
	>
	> Willam
	> <snip>
	> -- 
	> 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