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

True, but what you are talking about is not extremely useful.  The problem
is, to totally qualify a topic, and it's various solutions, would require
megabytes of background information and design theory.

Take for example the current topic of field size.  I use 255 for ALL text
fields.  I have my reasons.  Are there consequences to do this?  Yes.  Are
there consequences with limiting field sizes?  Yes.  To fully qualify my
reasons, or the reasons for the other side would take weeks of posting.
Every topic on the matter can branch into a dozen other topics, each with
their various 'side issues'.  

With text fields within a Jet database, you have the subject of how data is
written to the text fields.  Jet uses a one 'size' byte to determine the
length of the text that follows.  So there is no lost space when the full
limit is not used.  Then there is the topic of a record size limit, which
gets into the topics of page sizes, proper normalization, relational design,
data validation, etc.

Each branch of the topic spreads out...further and further.

So, what's my point?  The point is that NEITHER side should make 'bald
statements', without some sort of basic qualification.  This applies to all
of our 'debates' (and we've had some heated ones).  

As for the mutual admiration society, well, I think we all need a pat on the
back sometimes, and quite frankly, nothing is more fun then debating
opposite sides of a topic with an equal in the field.  It can be dangerous
though, tempers can rise, and egos can be crushed, so every once in a while,
we need to admire each other and let our mutual respect be shown.  It just
cushions the blows from the next 'debate'! ;)

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Welz [mailto:jwelz at hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 2:52 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size


Not all consumers of the verbiage generated at this list are skilled 
programmers nor do they all have frameworks.  Many, I am sure, are not clear

on normalization.  Many are learning about coding, and I recall seeing 
questions about things such as input masks.  Not everyone is equipped to 
handle every possible kind of record validation or data error in code.

For some, limits on field size may well represent a meaningful restriction 
on data, one that may tune users in on the type of data expected and can 
help mitigate a failure to save records.

Bald statements by highly regarded professionals that they do not restrict 
text field size without addressing the record size are as helpful as saying 
data conflict errors will significantly decrease or vanish if you just use 
unbound forms.  It's a cure for a problem, but there are consequences.  If 
you look at the history of the previous thread on this topic, you will 
realize that there are highly regarded developers with years of experience 
who did not know about or consider the matter of record size limitations so 
you can be certain that many people who browse for information here would 
benefit from a bit more than 'I set field size to 255 for all text fields.

Some of the thread subjects on this topic remind me of that Monty Python 
skit/song Spam spam spam spam spam....  the last 10 posts on this topic read

like a mutual admiration society.

Ciao
Jürgen Welz
Edmonton, Alberta
jwelz at hotmail.com