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

Charlotte Foust cfoust at infostatsystems.com
Tue Dec 6 09:59:59 CST 2005


Amen to that, Jim.  

Charlotte


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:04 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size


Drew,

<< Plus, isn't allowing Jet to force a field size sloppy programming,
instead of programming a proper data validation routine? >>

  I don't believe so.  I think it's sloppy development to allow for the
potential of an error to occur if you have a tool/capability to prevent
it.

  One of reasons I limit field lengths at the JET engine level is
because it's so easy to move data into a database via some means other
then the Access UI.

Jim.



-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:03 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: Re: [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
--
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



More information about the AccessD mailing list