Inbox Columns company

  • Thread starter Thread starter thomas
  • Start date Start date
T

thomas

Hi !

I tried to add the column company from contacts to my inbox but the
field stays blank.
What Iam doing wrong ?

Thanks for your help

Thomas Radas
 
Any folder view shows only the data in that folder, even though Outlook lets you think otherwise by allowing you to add fields from different types of items in the folder. The Company field that you see under All Contacts Field does not apply to messages.
 
Hm !

So it seems to me as database developer that there is not really a
rational model behind ?

Thanks Thomas
 
There is indeed a rational model behind it, but it is one that stymies many database developers: Outlook is a semi-structured database, not a relational database.
 
I can't decide if I'd rather be semi-structured or relational.
Semi-structured is still one step above delusional, isn't it? Relational
sounds nicer. I think I'd rather be that.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
There is indeed a rational model behind it, but it is one that stymies many
database developers: Outlook is a semi-structured database, not a relational
database.
 
But being relational limits you to homogeneous data. You can't mix and match items in a single folder or drink red wine with fish.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers



Russ Valentine said:
I can't decide if I'd rather be semi-structured or relational.
Semi-structured is still one step above delusional, isn't it? Relational
sounds nicer. I think I'd rather be that.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
There is indeed a rational model behind it, but it is one that stymies many
database developers: Outlook is a semi-structured database, not a relational
database.

thomas said:
Hm !

So it seems to me as database developer that there is not really a
rational model behind ?

Thanks Thomas
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oh, ick. Homogenous is definitely not for me. That's like pretending that
science and religion answer the same questions. More to the pint, I know of
a number of fish that beg for a wed rine. Even semi-structured is a stretch
for me. I think I'll just stick with delusional.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
But being relational limits you to homogeneous data. You can't mix and match
items in a single folder or drink red wine with fish.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers



Russ Valentine said:
I can't decide if I'd rather be semi-structured or relational.
Semi-structured is still one step above delusional, isn't it? Relational
sounds nicer. I think I'd rather be that.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
There is indeed a rational model behind it, but it is one that stymies
many
database developers: Outlook is a semi-structured database, not a
relational
database.

thomas said:
Hm !

So it seems to me as database developer that there is not really a
rational model behind ?

Thanks Thomas
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top