Re: Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:20:48 -0400
Message-ID: <479e7161$0$4055$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>>On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, "David W. Fenton"
>><XXXuse..._at_dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote
>>>innews:c4699a61-e76f-4ff3-aa25-310929b6ecc0_at_e10g2000prf.googlegrou
>>>ps.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.
>>
>>*Sigh*. Yes, but as bob has pointed out, you've misconstrued my
>>point. Because it is marketed at different business problems (ones
>>with few concurrent users, simple domains, comparatively smaller
>>schema), a lot of Access users can get away with mistakes that
>>someone using, say, Oracle 11g to keep track of millions of facts
>>would in the end get called up on. So that's nothing to do with
>>the technology, just the market, which makes your empassioned
>>defence of the super-duper jetomatic engine a bit misplaced.
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:20:48 -0400
Message-ID: <479e7161$0$4055$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David W. Fenton wrote:
> JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in > news:aedc71b3-81f2-4b22-9aed-fa3e3cbb7746_at_u10g2000prn.googlegroups.co > m: >
>>On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, "David W. Fenton"
>><XXXuse..._at_dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote
>>>innews:c4699a61-e76f-4ff3-aa25-310929b6ecc0_at_e10g2000prf.googlegrou
>>>ps.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.
>>
>>*Sigh*. Yes, but as bob has pointed out, you've misconstrued my
>>point. Because it is marketed at different business problems (ones
>>with few concurrent users, simple domains, comparatively smaller
>>schema), a lot of Access users can get away with mistakes that
>>someone using, say, Oracle 11g to keep track of millions of facts
>>would in the end get called up on. So that's nothing to do with
>>the technology, just the market, which makes your empassioned
>>defence of the super-duper jetomatic engine a bit misplaced.
> > I'm not defending Jet here. I'm pointing out a logical error in your > attributing to "Access" something that has nothing specifically to > do with Access.
You are an idiot. Jim didn't attribute anything to Access. In fact, he said it would be wrong to let an ignoramus blame his ignorance on the tool.
>>I'll also ignore the diatribe that followed in light of your
>>misunderstanding. (And the fact that you share my mother's maiden
>>name, so may well be long distant family...).
>
> I do not misunderstand.
Then I can only conclude you lack the capacity to comprehend the relatively simple written english that appears above.
[irrelevancies snipped] Received on Tue Jan 29 2008 - 01:20:48 CET