[AccessD] Find First in an Array?

...yikes! ...the JIT tab war ...then the bound/unbound war ...and now you 
want to start another one?
...static data goes in the fe ...the cache has better uses ...imnsho :)

William

--------------------------------------------------
From: "jwcolby" <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:01 PM
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" 
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Find First in an Array?

> Rocky,
>
> I was not addressing anything other than the "assumption" that was 
> expressed that certain tables
> "would be in the FE".  If you as the owner / developer want them there 
> that is all that needs to be
> said.
>
> In MY systems I never place such tables in the FE.  If I were to 
> "purchase" or other be placed in
> charge of your systems, I would move the tables to the BE.
>
> Remember though that I DO cache my "rarely modified / often used" data so 
> it does not matter that it
> is on in a BE on the server.  It will cross the wire only once per form 
> per user.  Thereafter it
> will almost certainly be as fast or faster than a local FE table.
>
> To address your question:
>
> > In my case, where the 'data' is really static, and is needed by each 
> > user, wouldn't the design be
> better with the language tables in the FE?
>
> This is one of those things that is purely opinion, and often near 
> religious in conviction, and I do
> not want to start a religious war.  Some people wholeheartedly believe in 
> placing such things in the
> FE.  I wholeheartedly believe otherwise.
>
> Often a belief is created in the distant past when we make a decision of 
> some sort that sways the
> argument in one direction or the other.  We often then stop "thinking" 
> about it and simply "believe"
> it.  If enough time passes, we may completely lose track of why we even 
> believe something.
>
> In this case I would guess that those who place such tables in the FE have 
> either never thought of
> or considered caching it, or considered and rejected it.  In those cases 
> having it in the FE solves
> a speed problem.  Now these people have "solved" their speed problem and 
> the "reason" fades into a
> belief.
>
> I started using data caches some time ago and, while I never used data 
> tables in the FE even before
> that, having the cache simply makes the FE Data Tables concept a 
> non-starter.  In all other respects
> (IMHO) having data in a BE is the accepted practice.  Since my caches 
> solve my speed issues I truly
> do not need them in the FE.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
>
> Rocky Smolin at Beach Access Software wrote:
>> " I am not going to get into the "this is a local table so it goes in the
>> FE... oh damn, now I gotta go update the data in 5 different FEs".  BEs 
>> are
>> for data (in my world)."
>>
>> In my case, where the 'data' is really static, and is needed by each 
>> user,
>> wouldn't the design be better with the language tables in the FE?
>>
>>
>> Rocky Smolin
>> Beach Access Software
>> 858-259-4334
>> www.e-z-mrp.com
>> www.bchacc.com
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>