Prev: Muliple Entries in Access 07 fields
Next: getting started
From: KenSheridan via AccessMonster.com on 20 Jan 2010 14:03
I couldn't agree more, Roger, but "need" can in some cases be a legal
requirement. Things might have changed since I retired, though knowing how
slowly the wheels of legislation grind I doubt it, but in my own field of
work I believe it was a legal requirement that all applications made to the
authority in our quasi-judicial capacity must be numbered sequentially and
immutably in order of date of receipt, and registered as such. The law may
be behind the technology, but its still the law until changed, I'm afraid.

Ken Sheridan
Stafford, England

Roger Carlson wrote:
>This is perhaps slightly off-topic, but since your question has been
>thoroughly answered (with 4 separate solutions, no less) I'd like to
>challenge the necessity of having an *unbroken* sequential number -- or a
>sequential number at all.
>
>Sequential numbering is really a paper-based security system. Sales Order,
>Purchase Order, Checks, and the like are numbered sequentially to make sure
>that someone doesn't steal one from the middle of a pile of them.
>Sequential numbers highlight this immediately because it's easy to see when
>a number has been skipped.
>
>However, when your system is electronic, paper-based security is as useful
>as a screen door in a submarine. It does no good, causes other design
>complications, and might possibly cause harm.
>
>I know there are customers who believe they "need" sequential numbering for
>some reason, but I always try to dissuade them. Sometimes it works
>sometimes it doesn't, but I try.
>
>Even though my sample was suggested as a good solution, to my mind Arvin's
>suggestion of an Autonumber field is really the best solution and forget the
>sequential gaps. They aren't worth worrying over.
>
>> Hello,
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>> Putting Twitter Realtime Search to Work
>> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/6100d85b-2f27-472d-af24-c9960b55b669/putting-twitter-realtime.aspx

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

From: Larry Linson on 21 Jan 2010 19:13
"Roger Carlson" <RogerCarlson(a)noemail.noemail> wrote

> I know there are customers who believe they "need"
> sequential numbering for some reason, but I always
> try to dissuade them. Sometimes it works
> sometimes it doesn't, but I try.

Long ago, but not so very far away, in the days of Access 2.0, I was doing
some work for a client on the prototype of an application that presumably
was going to be developed further to cover the workflow in their entire
production process. The "little old* lady accountant" who was one of the
ones who had to approve just about had a fit of apoplexy when she saw
missing numbers and it was explained why.

* not as old then as I am now, I suspect, but a real,
old-time, green eyeshade and sleeve-garters
bookkeeper type person

That's not one of those cases where you want to have a logical discussion to
prove the client's approver wrong. It was simple to correct... slight logic
change, DMAX out of the bag of tricks, and everybody was happy. Except, in
the longer term, the contract broker for whom I was working when they found
out they weren't "in with" the IT manager as they had thought.

He just up and took another job somewhere else, didn't even bother to call
the sales person for the contract broker, and he'd been the executive
sponsor of this particular application. The new IT manager decided to move
everything from client-server to IBM AS-400.

Bye, bye, development contract.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Office Access MVP



From: John W. Vinson on 21 Jan 2010 19:44
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:13:45 -0600, "Larry Linson" <bouncer(a)localhost.not>
wrote:

>He just up and took another job somewhere else, didn't even bother to call
>the sales person for the contract broker, and he'd been the executive
>sponsor of this particular application. The new IT manager decided to move
>everything from client-server to IBM AS-400.
>
>Bye, bye, development contract.

.... and bye, bye, performance and responsiveness from their database and their
developer/IT staff. Sigh.
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Muliple Entries in Access 07 fields
Next: getting started