Re: Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

I was making a direct reference to the following quote:

> In a recent thread on this subject, Tony Toews Access MVP qualified
> that he liked using incremental autonumbers (rather than random)
> because they where easier to type (WHERE ID = -2001736589 may
> encourage typos) and easier to drop into conversation ("Hello Tony?
> I'm seeing a problem with the record where the ID is -2001736589...").

Of course, theoritically and in a world with unlimited budget, you're right in the sense that a surrogate key should never cross the boundaries of a database (the interface beeing located inside in these boundaries) but my clients don't have infinite budget and my brain isn't infinite either.

-- 
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)


"Jamie Collins" <jamiecollins_at_xsmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a33ae5d4-2f92-4dbc-aa86-991d6422ec83_at_q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...


> On Jan 28, 5:30 pm, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the

> blanks, no >

>> if you live in a perfect world, one with infinite budget and infinite


>> time to do any project, then I understand your concerns.

>>

>> if I

>> were to live in a perfect world, I wouldn't have to work to earn a living 

>> in

>> the first place.

>

> Are you really aiming your comments at me? I've already said in this

> thread that I frequently encounter 'autonumber' problems so how could

> that be a "perfect world" for me?

>

>> I understand your concerns.

>

> Oh yeah? Do you understand that my concern is not that Access MVPs in

> typically use autonumbers on most, if not all, their tables? I'm sure

> they know enough to make their own decisions. Rather, my concern is

> that Tony Toews Access MVPs would promote such practise without giving

> good reasons or presenting a balanced view, and that readers will he

> says because of the letters M, V and P and in lieu of understanding

> the issues themselves. Once again, I should say I have no problem with

> Tony Toews Access MVP generally, I think he was just having an off day

> or perhaps wanted to provoke a response by being flippant. And I've no

> problem with anyone being provocative round here (I'd be a hypocrite

> if I said I did <g>).

>

>> you cannot codifying everything for a variety of

>> reasons: budget, system already in place and working well, impossibility 

>> to

>> anticipate everything, more art than a science, etc., etc.

>

> Hm, "codifying" is not a word I'm overly familiar with, I had to look

> it up: "the process of collecting and restating the law of a

> jurisdiction in certain areas, usually by subject... To arrange or

> systematize". If that's an accusation then Tony is just as guilty as I

> with his, "It's one of my rules" comment.

>

>> Why would they pay to

>> change something that had worked well for them for many years and at the

>> risk of finding themselves at the front of something new that might not 

>> work

>> as well as the one system?

>

> Did I suggest they should? Re-engineering code for the sake of it is

> not my philosophy and I offer the following recent thread in evidence:

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.access/msg/4e635944f8042608

>

> Pete says> >  my real question/agenda is: Should I go through my app

>> > and change everything that's Double to Decimal?

>>

> Jamie says> I don't think you should reengineer your code in the way

> you suggest.

>> That would be committing the same mistake as those who add an

>> autonumber primary key to every table i.e. done out of habit, knee

>> jerk reaction rather than engaging the brain. Fix bugs instead ;-)

>

> Back to the current thread:

>

>> this system is working well at the moment and has

>> done so for many years; it would probably make your teeth gnashing but 

>> it's

>> not on their radar at this moment to change it.

>

> I'm sure that if I looked at code I wrote last year that is working

> well at the moment I'd want to do it differently given the opportunity

> but I wouldn't seek to create such an opportunity; I'd rather put it

> down to experience and tackle something new.

>

>> In this message, you can replace the name of Celko with the name of a lot 

>> of

>> persons around here but not with mine.

>

> So are you aiming you comments at me directly, merely implicating me

> or have you just chosen to attach your 'rant' to my post at random?

>

> Jamie.

>

> --

>