Allow Zero Length String Property

Allow Zero Length String Property - 2000 vs 2003

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ash - 15 Dec 2004 21:17 GMT

Hello,

I created a table using MS Access 2003 (Which uses Access 2000 format
database), the default value for the attribute, "Allow Zero Length String"
has been changed to Yes.

Can anyone please verify, why it has been done? Is there any way to change
this default.

My two cents: For the past 6 years I am used to seeing the default for
"Allow Zero Length String" to No. Changing all of a sudden to Yes, broke a
whole lot of things. It is extremely frustrating. Why the folks at
Microsoft do not get the concept of backward compatibility. Actually, if you
look at every other relational database, Null value is what goes into a
column, when you try to insert a zero length string. With that in mind, the
defaul of No for the attribute made sense.

I would appreciate the comments.

Signature

Ash

Reply to this Message

Douglas J. Steele - 15 Dec 2004 23:56 GMT

We've asked as well, but I don't believe we ever got an answer. However, I
don't see why changing the default would break anything. You should always
be checking all your properties to ensure that they're correct before you
start using your tables.

Signature

Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

> Hello,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> I would appreciate the comments.

Reply to this Message

Ash - 16 Dec 2004 03:11 GMT

Doug my friend,

I should be checking a lot of things. Why do you think DEFAULT values are
there? They are there, so that people don't have to think about them, if
they don't have to.

You dig?

Regards.

Ash

> We've asked as well, but I don't believe we ever got an answer. However, I
> don't see why changing the default would break anything. You should always
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> >
> > I would appreciate the comments.

Reply to this Message

Brendan Reynolds - 16 Dec 2004 17:56 GMT

I can only assume that it was a misguided attempt to 'protect' inexperienced
users from having to deal with Null values. If so, it was of course doomed
to failure, as they will sooner or later have to deal with Null values in
numeric or date fields anyway.

Are you the same person who posted the 'Allow Zero Length String in MS
Access 2002 and 2003' post? If not, be sure to check out that thread if you
haven't already done so.

Signature

Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.

> Hello,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> I would appreciate the comments.

Reply to this Message

david epsom dot com dot au - 17 Dec 2004 07:21 GMT

> I can only assume that it was a misguided attempt to 'protect'
> inexperienced users

I'm not sure that I agree. While I understand the arguments
for Null in a database, the fact is that Web Interfaces do
not do Null. Web Interfaces do empty strings. Coercing
Web Interfaces into using Null values is painful, irritating,
and misguided.

So my first guess would be that it was the push towards
Web Interfaces which encouraged MS to set the text property
to allow empty strings.

To a lesser extent, the same is true of any interface other
than the native Access interface, so my second guess would
be that it was part of the historical move from an optimised
database system to the loose collection of standard parts
(office, vba, etc) that is Access today.

(david)

> I can only assume that it was a misguided attempt to 'protect' inexperienced
> users from having to deal with Null values. If so, it was of course doomed
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> >
> > I would appreciate the comments.

Reply to this Message

Brendan Reynolds - 17 Dec 2004 15:40 GMT

Well, if that was the reason, I believe my second point still stands -
changing this property does not solve the problem, as web developers still
have to deal with Null values in numeric and date/time fields.

Signature

>> I can only assume that it was a misguided attempt to 'protect'
>> inexperienced users
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>> >
>> > I would appreciate the comments.

Reply to this Message