[AccessD] Autonumber Assigned Immediately

And as Lambert mentioned, you make the change to the
"number" field, one place. thats it. 

No changes are needed on the other tables as they are
not linked on the "visible number" but on the hidden
PKID.

--- "Heenan, Lambert" <Lambert.Heenan at AIG.COM> wrote:

> Sorry. I can't agree with that. The whole *point* of
> creating the 'numbers'
> with code is you can control it, and you can revise
> it when things have to
> change.
> 
> Say you start of with a simple sequential number
> (not autonumber), 1,2,3
> etc.
> 
> Six months later you are told that all the numbers
> have to be padded to 6
> digits. Ok, either change the field to a text field
> (if it wasn't such
> already), revise the number generator accordingly,
> and run an update query
> on the existing records to include the padding, or
> find all uses of the
> 'number' field everywhere in the database and change
> the formatting of the
> number display. [I know which choice I would make :)
> ]
> 
> Then a year down the line the suits say "You have to
> include an alpha prefix
> that shows which office created the record". Fine
> (As long as you can
> identify the office within the rest of the data).
> You change the 'number'
> generating code to tack on the prefix for new
> records and then run an update
> query to add the prefix to all the existing records.
> 
> 
> Sit back and wait for the next bright idea about
> what extra information can
> be stuffed into a 'serial number'. All of this is
> just a minor pain in the
> butt because of course you are not using this field
> as a Primary Key, that's
> handled by an autonumber that no one sees, so all
> your relationships are
> intact.
> 
> Lambert :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
> Behalf Of Susan Harkins
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:11 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem
> solving'
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned
> Immediately
> 
> 
> Except that the code you went to generate that
> unique number from the onset
> probably isn't gong to "adhere to the following
> rules..." anymore than an
> AutoNumber is. ;) 
> 
> Susan H. 
> 
> Exactly. An Autonumber is fine to display if your
> 'just want a unique
> number', but come the day that "the management" (or
> "the new guy") steps in
> and says "it's essential that we have a consistent
> numbering scheme in all
> of our case records. It must adhere to the following
> rules...", then your
> use of the Autonumber is no longer a good idea
> because you have *no control*
> over them. Then you will be forced into generating
> the 'numbers' in code, so
> you might as well do it from the beginning.
> 
> -- 
> 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
>