Using SQL to update control properties...possible?

[Jac]

Hi,

Is there an SQL command that allows control properties on fields to be
changed?

I'm specifically using RunSQL in a macro to try to do this.

Thanks
Jac

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

No.

,,,and there shouldn't be either.

SQL is for the definition and manipulation of data only.

Try not to use macros as they offer no error handling support.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
"Jac" <amhirsohail@ya hoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1131377747 .177247.235800@ g44g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Is there an SQL command that allows control properties on fields to be
> changed?
>
> I'm specifically using RunSQL in a macro to try to do this.
>
> Thanks
> Jac
>[/color]

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:41:53 -0000, "Craig Alexander Morrison"
<reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>No.
>
>,,,and there shouldn't be either.
>
>SQL is for the definition and manipulation of data only.
>
>Try not to use macros as they offer no error handling support.[/color]

I wouldn't go quite so far as "shouldn't" . In some cases, a framework will
maintain metadata in tables, and allow the metadata tables to be safely
updated. Most SQL Server databases have a little or a lot of this going on.

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

Metadata is data.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam. nospam> wrote in message
news:m61vm1hdpp tajejkbaksimj9j 9a6bfbim2@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:41:53 -0000, "Craig Alexander Morrison"
> <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>No.
>>
>>,,,and there shouldn't be either.
>>
>>SQL is for the definition and manipulation of data only.
>>
>>Try not to use macros as they offer no error handling support.[/color]
>
> I wouldn't go quite so far as "shouldn't" . In some cases, a framework
> will
> maintain metadata in tables, and allow the metadata tables to be safely
> updated. Most SQL Server databases have a little or a lot of this going
> on.[/color]

[david epsom dot com dot au]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

Form properties are data. If you are using ADP's,
where the form properties are stored in SQL Server,
you can execute stored procedures to change the
data. (Although AFAIK that is not supported or
documented)

Access/Jet MDB's do not have stored procedures that
you can execute to change the form data, even though
it is all stored in a record in a database.

(david)


"Craig Alexander Morrison" <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote in message
news:436f9505@2 12.67.96.135...[color=blue]
> Metadata is data.
>
> --
> Slainte
>
> Craig Alexander Morrison
> Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
> "Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam. nospam> wrote in message
> news:m61vm1hdpp tajejkbaksimj9j 9a6bfbim2@4ax.c om...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:41:53 -0000, "Craig Alexander Morrison"
>> <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>No.
>>>
>>>,,,and there shouldn't be either.
>>>
>>>SQL is for the definition and manipulation of data only.
>>>
>>>Try not to use macros as they offer no error handling support.[/color]
>>
>> I wouldn't go quite so far as "shouldn't" . In some cases, a framework
>> will
>> maintain metadata in tables, and allow the metadata tables to be safely
>> updated. Most SQL Server databases have a little or a lot of this going
>> on.[/color]
>
>[/color]

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

"Craig Alexander Morrison" <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote in
news:436f9505@2 12.67.96.135:
[color=blue]
> Metadata is data.[/color]

Well, technically speaking, so are forms and form controls, since
they are stored in a record in a Jet data table.

I'm not disputing your point, simply pointing out that the
distinction you just made is not sufficient to justify your
argument.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:30:20 -0600, "David W. Fenton"
<dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Craig Alexander Morrison" <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote in
>news:436f9505@ 212.67.96.135:
>[color=green]
>> Metadata is data.[/color]
>
>Well, technically speaking, so are forms and form controls, since
>they are stored in a record in a Jet data table.
>
>I'm not disputing your point, simply pointing out that the
>distinction you just made is not sufficient to justify your
>argument.[/color]

Right - metadata is data, and metadata is attributes - Q.E.D.

[jimfortune@compumarc.com]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

Steve Jorgensen wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:41:53 -0000, "Craig Alexander Morrison"
> <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >No.
> >
> >,,,and there shouldn't be either.
> >
> >SQL is for the definition and manipulation of data only.
> >
> >Try not to use macros as they offer no error handling support.[/color]
>
> I wouldn't go quite so far as "shouldn't" . In some cases, a framework will
> maintain metadata in tables, and allow the metadata tables to be safely
> updated. Most SQL Server databases have a little or a lot of this going on.[/color]

I totally agree with the idea of doing things to system tables that MS
never intended provided the likely consequences are understood. Some
don't. Keeping in mind that "shouldn't" depends on who's saying it,
"shouldn't" can apply here in one sense given this quote from the SQL
Server 2000 System Table Map:

"This poster of system tables in Microsoft SQL Server 2000 is intended
as an informational resource for developers and administrators of SQL
Server. Microsoft does not support user modifications to system
tables, such as inserting, updating, or deleting data, as well as
changing the definition of system tables."

Here I interpret loosely MS' quote to mean "Here's how to do it, just
remember that we're not responsible for any consequences once you cross
this Rubicon we've drawn in the sand [snicker]." I wouldn't be
surprised if using API functions in VBA has its own set of disclaimers.
Hmmmm, I hadn't thought of changing the definition of system tables
until I read that quote :-).

James A. Fortune

[Craig Alexander Morrison]

Re: Using SQL to update control properties...po ssible?

When referring to metadata I was referring to its classic definition which
is a data dictionary.

In addition to metadata there is application metadata but I am not aware of
any application metadata that can be defined or manipulated by any variant
of SQL that is within nodding distance of the ISO definitions.

Certain proprietary implementations may obfuscate this definition, they may
even have a variant of SQL that can process application metadata.

Now that Microsoft have finally settled with IBM over the JDA breakdown I am
reminded that the SQL Server we have today is based on the crapulent SyBase
product was (finally) vastly improved for SQL Server 2000 but has since
moved backwards IMO. Had MS and IBM stayed friends the MS product would be
based on DB2 although the Microsoft DataBase that came out 13 years ago was
a very good stab at a small scale implementation of the Relational Model and
I am not sure if this would have happened without the falling out.

So we may have been blessed with Access and Jet and cursed with SQL Server.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9707DB1 50EB65dfentonbw aynetinvali@216 .196.97.142...[color=blue]
> "Craig Alexander Morrison" <reply@newsgrou ps.com> wrote in
> news:436f9505@2 12.67.96.135:
>[color=green]
>> Metadata is data.[/color]
>
> Well, technically speaking, so are forms and form controls, since
> they are stored in a record in a Jet data table.
>
> I'm not disputing your point, simply pointing out that the
> distinction you just made is not sufficient to justify your
> argument.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]