Re: Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:05:13 -0400
Message-ID: <479d0020$0$4061$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
>
> What *are* you talking about?
>
> Any mistakes in schema design that you can make in Access, you can
> make in any other RDBMS.
>
> I would agree that there are many places that the wizards in Access
> and the sample databases encourage sub-optimal practices. But most
> professional developers aren't using either wizards or the sample
> databases as their models for developing their own applications.
>
> If your impression of Access comes from futzing with it for 10
> minutes and from encountering kludged-together apps created by your
> company receptionist, then you just haven't a clue what Access
> offers, either as an application development platform or as a data
> store (using its native Jet engine).
>
> This is a schema question, and that is orthogonal to Access, because
> Access is an application development platform. If you use Jet for
> your data store, then Jet is relevant to the discussion. But you can
> use any data store that offers an ISAM or ADO or ODBC drivers, and
> that means all your schema issues are completely divorced from
> Access itself.
>
> That you can't seem to keep this distinction clear in your mentions
> of Access demonstrates pretty clearly that you are completely
> clueless about Access and really aren't in any position to be making
> disparaging comments about it.
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:05:13 -0400
Message-ID: <479d0020$0$4061$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David W. Fenton wrote:
> JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:c4699a61-e76f-4ff3-aa25-310929b6ecc0_at_e10g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> m:
>
>
>>I certainly don't think developers should excuse sloppy RDBMS >>design just because they are using access (and of course I'm sure >>many of the professionals here wouldn't dream of doing so, despite >>others laxness).
>
>
> What *are* you talking about?
>
> Any mistakes in schema design that you can make in Access, you can
> make in any other RDBMS.
>
> I would agree that there are many places that the wizards in Access
> and the sample databases encourage sub-optimal practices. But most
> professional developers aren't using either wizards or the sample
> databases as their models for developing their own applications.
>
> If your impression of Access comes from futzing with it for 10
> minutes and from encountering kludged-together apps created by your
> company receptionist, then you just haven't a clue what Access
> offers, either as an application development platform or as a data
> store (using its native Jet engine).
>
> This is a schema question, and that is orthogonal to Access, because
> Access is an application development platform. If you use Jet for
> your data store, then Jet is relevant to the discussion. But you can
> use any data store that offers an ISAM or ADO or ODBC drivers, and
> that means all your schema issues are completely divorced from
> Access itself.
>
> That you can't seem to keep this distinction clear in your mentions
> of Access demonstrates pretty clearly that you are completely
> clueless about Access and really aren't in any position to be making
> disparaging comments about it.
Nothing you have written contradicts JOG. In fact, you have agreed with him albeit vehemently and derogatively. Received on Sun Jan 27 2008 - 23:05:13 CET