Graph of relationships

[nagyf]

Gentle list members,

In my Access 97 version I cannot print a hardcopy of the Relationships window. When I make screen hardcopy, the table names written in grey over black background are unreadable.

On the other hand, unnecessary info is on the figure: the unrealated fields.
Very important info is missing: the settings of the referential integrity.

I have found out a way to denote the integrity settings:

[tt]
RUD
MASTER TABLE.main field----->DETAIL TABLE.subordinate field


where

R = referential integrity
U = cascaded update
D = cascaded delete
[/tt]

Who knows an automated way of graphical documentation of relationships?

Regards[tt] [tt]
Ferenc Nagy
|\ /~ ~~|~~~ nagyf@alpha0.iki.kfki.hu Fax: (36-1)-392-2529 New!
| \ | | Institute of Isotope and Surface Chemistry
| \ | -+- 1525 Bp. POB 77. Tel. 36-1)-392-2550
| \| |

http://alpha0.iki.kfki.hu/~nagyf

`-' ' `-' "The goal of the life is the struggle itself"
[/tt]

 

[MichaelRed]

Upgrade to 2K?

After all, you will (soon) be faced with the necessity to do so anyway.

MichaelRed
m.red@att.net

There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over

 

[LittleSmudge]

Interesting side issue Michael - but WHY do you say that he'll (soon) be faced with the necessity to do so anyway


The story I'm hearing around here is that A97 has a huge user base and few organisation see any great advantage in upgrading ( given the DAO to ADO porting problems ). The expectation is the A97 and DAO skills will be in demand for many years to come.


( I admit to being an ADO fan { & active user } but I still have some A97 customers - { & even Version 2 users occasionally )


I'd just be interested in why you are prophesising the imminent demise of A97.


G LS
accessaceNOJUNK@valleyalley.co.uk
Remove the NOJUNK to use.

Please remember to give helpful posts the stars they deserve!
This makes the post more visible to others in need! :-D

 

[MichaelRed]

Just the experience of being a 'developer' with MS languages. Every time I say I've "arrived" - MS changes the rules of engagement.

I TRY to stay a generation (actually TWO) behind, as my crib sheet says MS NEVER gets it right until ver three, extrapolation from whole languages says that any feature 'introduced' in ver X will not be really useful (e.g. debuged and documented) until ver X + 2. Same seems to apply to "large" changes to existing features (although I doubt if HELP will ever recover from the transition to HTML Help).

I'm probably just showing my age, but it seems more and more difficult for me to seperate even different development environments - much less different releases of the same one, so I generally try to keep no more than two versions of a particular language in play at once.

Concatenating the several random thoughts puts me in the position of currently using '97 & 2K for Ms. A., but looking to start .Net in the near term future. That implies dropping '97 (at least for me). I probably am projecting my capabilities and thinking onto the remainder of the population in the earlier post.

I'm not attempting to do any crystal ball stuff, nor am I trying to say that MS .97 will become unavailable or unuseable in the immediate future. On the other hand, try to buy a PC with WIN 98. Think about what legacy functions are (perhaps) buried in Ms. A. - which might require some obscure OS API call which is dropped in a latter version of WIN. My personal estimate is that there is SOME such issue between Ms. A. '97 and WIN 2K, I just haven't needed to marry them in that manner - YET.

MichaelRed
m.red@att.net

There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over