Gary Kjos
garykjos at gmail.com
Mon Sep 13 16:28:44 CDT 2010
There is a huge amount of personal preference in these things. My philosophy on these things is to "Never Say Never and Never Say ALWAYS either". There are sometimes reasons for going one way or the other but sometimes it does just come down to a preference. And GOTO's in COBOL are perfectly fine in my book - if you use them RIGHT. Yes they can be used to write spaghetti code and that is why many shops banned them. But I think that was a bad idea too. They are fine when used appropriately. As I recall. Been 10 years since I did any COBOL at all and almost 20 since I did a lot of it. Ahhh I miss the good old days. ;-) GK On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Dettman <jimdettman at verizon.net> wrote: > > Great explanation Gary. I would only add that part of the debate to is > that if you go the unbound route (and do all the work), then you have to ask > why bother using Access at all with all of its quirks (I'm talking about > install problems and references). After all, you can't do a 3 tier design > with it and if your going the unbound route, your typically looking to do > some type of n-tier design or client/server setup. Might as well use > something else and get a whole heck of a lot more control, access to 3rd > party controls, standalone EXE, etc. > > As far as the PK's, well...I don't quite agree. And I'm not going to get > into it here as we've been over that ground many times. In fact I wrote an > article for EE with my views on that subject. So if anyone cares to read > it, it's here (I'm not 100% sure this will work though for non-members - > they've been making a lot of changes lately): > > http://www.experts-exchange.com/viewArticle.jsp?aid=2041 > > Jim. > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gary Kjos > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 3:32 PM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: Re: [AccessD] The Famous Bound/Unbound Debate > > Hi Brad, > > Bound refers to using a record set, possibly a table or maybe a query > as the record source for an Access Form. This has the advantage of > letting Access take care of a lot of functionality. > > Unbound refers to not having a record source for the form and then > using code behind the form to populate the various controls on the > form. Doing this requires some amount of work to populate those > fields, detect changes to them the user might make and then making the > corresponding update to the records in the data tables. > > If you are using Access built in Jet Database as the data storage for > the application and you don't have that many rows in your tables, most > would agree that bound is the way to go. But maybe not ;-) If you use > another database engine to store the data, perhaps SQL Server, it > could be argued that it's much better to only retrieve the individual > records you are wanting to display and or change and so doing that > with code and then populating the controls on the form might be a > better way to go. > > For many of us, it is a matter of preference in doing it one way or > the other. Sometimes it might be better to do it one way and sometimes > it might be better to do it the other way. > > I think that is the gist of it. I'm sure I will be corrected if I have > miss-stated something or missed any key points. > > Another heated past debate was over the use of Natural Keys verses > Surrogate Keys. A Surrogate key would be something like an Autonumber > field, randomly or sequentially assigned by the database engine. A > Natural Key would be something like a Social Security Number. In my > opinion Natural Keys are similar to the use of GO TO in COBOL > programs. There may be a place for them occasionally but generally > they should be avoided. In my opinion. A system assigned unique key > that identifies the record allows the field that would have been used > as the key to be changed in the event that something happens to make > that necessary. Perhaps a data entry error? Whatever. If you have > other tables joined to that record on that natural key you are STUCK > without doing some cascading update or something. > > GK > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Brad Marks <BradM at blackforestltd.com> > wrote: >> All, >> >> Compared to most of you, I am a relative newcomer to the world of >> Access. >> >> Over the past few months, I have noticed a number of references to the >> Bound/Unbound debate. It sounds like this was a really hotly contested >> issue at one time and that now people almost joke about it. >> >> For us newcomers, it would be nice if someone could explain this issue >> at a high level and perhaps spell out the major pros and cons of each >> side of the debate. >> >> It is not my intent to start a Web-war, I would just like to better >> understand what is going on here. >> >> Thanks, >> Brad >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Drew Wutka >> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:53 PM >> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server Express - true skinny >> >> Exactly. Which is part of the premise of the bound/unbound debate. >> With unbound forms, where data is written in a split second chunk, the >> stability of much higher user volume goes up tremendously! >> >> Drew >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman >> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:46 PM >> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server Express - true skinny >> >> Dan, >> >> That is more or less true, but the real bottle neck with a JET based DB >> has >> never been .LDB file operations. >> >> With JET, all processing is on the client side. The server acts as >> nothing >> more then a file share. >> >> The trick with keeping a connection open to the BE avoids the repeated >> closing/opening of the LDB and DB files and all the associated overhead >> with >> removing/adding an active user under JET. Some apps benefit from that, >> other not because they already maintain a connection one way or another. >> The problem can be further compounded if the server has OPLOCKS on >> (which >> allows client side caching of files). JET doesn't need this as the >> cache is >> already on the client side. So it's simply a wasted effort on the >> servers >> part. And by default, OPLOCKs is enabled on Windows servers. >> >> The real restriction of JET is just one of stability. With no server >> side >> process to perform a rollback if a disconnect occurs, anytime that >> happens >> in the middle of write operations your fair game for corruption. So by >> the >> time you get past 30 or 40 stations, it's just hard to keep the >> environment >> stable. >> >> To prove that point, you can easily run a read-only/reporting JET based >> app >> with 200+ users without issues. >> >> It's not an issue of performance, but one of stability. >> >> Jim. >> The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the >> person or entity >> to which it is addressed and may contain II-VI Proprietary and/or II-VI >> Business >> Sensitive material. If you are not the intended recipient, please >> contact the sender >> immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic >> or hard copy. >> You are notified that any review, retransmission, copying, disclosure, >> dissemination, >> or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this >> information by persons >> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> > > > > -- > Gary Kjos > garykjos at gmail.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 > -- Gary Kjos garykjos at gmail.com