Whats Stable

[David W. Fenton]

Just for grins

You've made a completely unwarranted assumption, i.e., that my
objection was based on performance.

I have said *zilch* about performance -- it is irrelevant for code
architecture, except when the better architecture is orders of
magnitude less efficient.

You are pursuing a red herring -- it in no way addresses my point.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Based on the test results, it is obviously not wrong

Who mentioned performance? That's your bugaboo, not mine.

I believe the test results do not substantiate your opinion.

Your tests are completely orthogonal to my position on this.

 

[David W. Fenton]

I can see using a parameter array of control references, but
in the OP's situation, the controls are unbound so I don't
see how their control source can contribute any information.

Well, in that case, he'd have to do is some other way, perhaps with
names. With unbound forms I usually name the control what the
ControlSource would be if it were bound.

There's also the issue of the result being the value of an
expression. While those concerns can be dealt with one way
or another, explaining all these generalities to someone
that needed to ask the original question is, IMO, not
productive.

Well, it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you
want to look up multiple fields, a generalized function can do that,
and return it as an array. How much knowledge the internals of the
function need of context is up to you -- or you can make it dumb and
just return a paired array of fieldname/value, and then do with it
what you want in the calling context.

Using a subform might be simpler than any of these code
techniques.

Sure. But I was only looking at the proposed solution, which I
consider very problematic, and trying to offer alternatives. I don't
mean to imply that my solution will be superior in all cases, just
that it's definitely worth considering.

To me concatenating a bunch of stuff together just so you can pass a
bunch of values in a single argument is a sign of a problem, that
you need a more robust solution.

I never use OpenArgs of forms for anything but a single argument,
and never for passing data into the form. For that, I always use a
standalone class module. This has the advantage of making the class
usable in multiple circumstances, and the forms/reports usable
without needing to know anything about their calling context -- they
only need to know how to get the needed data out of the class
module. Depending on the context, that would be a better solution
than my multi-value function.

 

[Guest]

--
Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP

I made no performance claims at all, so your tests are completely
irrelevant.

I believe performance is important in this case. If you have an objection
to the structure of the code, I would be will to hear your opinion on why
the structure is terrible. To me, it appears to be efficient and easily
understandable. Even with 30 years of experience in coding, I will not claim
I have nothing to learn. My goal is to make the code as easy for another
person to read as possible and keep an eye on performance issues. Also, the
testing I did was actually prompted more by Marshall's comments than yours.
"OTOH, I agree with David that a recordset would be
preferable:"

Okay, so why would a recordset be preferable? I did the testing to see what
the performance issues would be. The differences in the style of the code
did not seem relevant, so IMHO, performance seemed important. Based on the
testing, whether you will admit it or not, it is obvious the DLookup option
is superior.
Had the Recordset option performed better, I would have so stated and
changed my recommendation.

Secondly, I owe you no apology. I've done nothing rude -- I've only
offered a different opinion.

Well, perhaps you are not aware of your offensive demeanor. Since you meant
no offense, then none taken. I will have to remember you are naturally
abrupt and don't have the best of social skills.

I don't, as a matter of fact.

I respectfully disagree.

I am arrogant, but I never attacked *you* -- I took issue with the
content of one of your posts. That isn't even close to being a
personal attack.

As intended, okay. As presented, using negative words like terrible, are
usually preceived as confrontive and demeaning.

 

[Guest]

--
Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP

You've made a completely unwarranted assumption, i.e., that my
objection was based on performance.

I did not make that assumption

I have said *zilch* about performance -- it is irrelevant for code
architecture, except when the better architecture is orders of
magnitude less efficient.

I think the testing bears out it is orders of magnitude better. You have
yet to post anything that points out why the architecture is inferior.
Opinions or preferences are not statements of fact.

You are pursuing a red herring -- it in no way addresses my point.

And what is your point? So far, all you have had to say is what you don't
like about the way I did it. If you have a better way, I will be happy to
hear it. I am not so egotistical that I will not learn and change when
convinced I am wrong.

 

[Marshall Barton]

Well, it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you
want to look up multiple fields, a generalized function can do that,
and return it as an array. How much knowledge the internals of the
function need of context is up to you -- or you can make it dumb and
just return a paired array of fieldname/value, and then do with it
what you want in the calling context.

Separating the calling context from the data retrival is a
good thing that I frequently forget in quick problem/answer
mode. Thanks for the nudge that I should keep it in mind
more often.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Well, perhaps you are not aware of your offensive demeanor. Since
you meant no offense, then none taken. I will have to remember
you are naturally abrupt and don't have the best of social skills.

That's really very polite and nonrude of you.

I've been discussing the actual strategy in another part of the
thread. You can read it there -- I don't think I need to explain it
again.

 

[Keith Wilby]

And I think you need to learn good manners.

Amen to that. David won't see this because he "plonked" me ages ago. I
have great respect for his expertise and knowledge but his people skills are
woefully lacking IMO.

Keith.

 

[Guest]

Indeed they are.
I have been trying to get him to explain to me what his objection is to my
method. Obviously, he doesn't really have one. All he has done is blow
smoke and try to change the subject.
If my idea has flaws, I really would like to know that what and why. It is
how I learn. All I have learned is David Fenton likes to argue. Have you
read any of his blog?

 

[Keith Wilby]

All I have learned is David Fenton likes to argue. Have you
read any of his blog?

No but I can imagine what it is like ;-)

Keith.