Prev: applying concatenate filter
Next: Even an error with this code I copied
From: Bob Quintal on 5 Jun 2010 21:11
=?Utf-8?B?Sk1heQ==?= <JMay(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:A784D56B-F46F-42E5-BAEB-92C23E666B1C(a)microsoft.com:

> Currently in my Query I'm getting what is needed, but
> unfortunately in my SubForm based on the query I'm getting:
>
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
>
> So Close, But YET so FAR from right!!!
>
The results you are getting is why anyone who has experience in
Access states loudly and firmly "DO NOT USE MULTI-VALUED FIELDS!"


>
>
> "JMay" wrote:
>
>> Well, this is a MICROSOFT Forum so you'd think that somehow there
>> would be a few "adopters" of the Mystic Access Programmers
>> product. hummmm.
>>
>> PS: you'r right I was a bit reluctant to try this, but I was
>> reluctant to try PC computers 30 years ago...
>>
>> Thanks..
>>
>> Any multivalue believers out there??
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> "Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com" wrote:
>>
>> > Larry's advice here is, indeed, reflective of the advice given
>> > by evey experienced developer in Access that I know of! Your
>> > statement
>> >
>> > "I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued
>> > fields"
>> >
>> > indicates that you know this to be true and are simply ignoring
>> > the accepted wisdom! Do you really expect anyone here to help
>> > you in this foolish quest?
>> >
>> > --
>> > There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!
>> >
>> > Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003
>> >
>> > Message posted via AccessMonster.com
>> > http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006
>> > /1
>> >
>> > .
>> >

From: PieterLinden via AccessMonster.com on 5 Jun 2010 22:21
JMay wrote:
>I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued fields option offered
>in Access 2007. But, as always, I get started very excited, but am unable to
>finish...

Let me put it this way. In a previous life, I supported FileMaker when it
went "relational" (I use the term loosely!) The FIRST thing we did was learn
to convert repeating fields into a proper structure (put them in another
table). I guess the moral of the story is this:

Just because MS can be talked into implementing something stupid doesn't mean
you should use it.

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006/1

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: applying concatenate filter
Next: Even an error with this code I copied