[AccessD] F'n 2007

Sorry John, I disagree.
The problem is/was that no one reviewed the entire Office suite for "common"
object references.
There was no "Commonality Architect" appointed.
Each team arrived at different approaches to the SAME TECHNICAL ISSUE.
I believe that cannot be disputed.
It was a huge technical oversight IMHO.
But, at the time, NO ONE CARED.
It was all about GETTING THE PRODUCT OUT THE DOOR ASAP FOR THE REVENUE $$$$.
As a businessman, I'd say "THAT's OK".
As a technical purist, I'd say "THAT Sucks".
The Business "side" won.
That's why Gates is rich.
End of story, end of rant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 2:55 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] F'n 2007
>
> Then it should be in the base language, not in the
> extensions.  The interfact should exist in the base language
> and each application should work to the interface.
>
> The problem is similar to buying a company and trying to
> merge their existing databases.  It is never trivial.  Pretty
> much all of the office applications were purchased from some
> third party and "merged" into an "office" environment.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
>