But you will never (in most circumstances) need the complicated version. Starter database? Final database!

Take care old hand. Pete

Really live forum :5:12 am here.

You made me come back.

"but you will need to answer how, when you need to specify the architect in properties databse it is going to be done - the potential entry is in 2 databases (contacts and company).

I assume your reaction is about the Account and Operations.

Well, the Property db is the Product. I can store the info from the Company file or Contact there.

When I'm selling the Product, I'm not anymore dealing with the architect but with the buyer and the seller.

The architect would come by lookup from the Product (Property), except if he is the seller (then I'd catch his account# !)

And the company file has a direct portal to the Account.db, listing all commercial operations...

In bonnies property database there are times, many times, where one entry can either be a contact or it can be a company. I know one could resolve this, but its going to get "heavy".

You follow my gist?

I knew you would be back! You just cannot resist! I like that. Pete

Ugo always stretches the mind. (Good night Ugo! what a workout!) I can see how this works well for him (and his company). It makes perfect sense, after having seen his "Operator" file. I think his solution is nearly perfect for his scenario.

But I don't need this level of complication! This DB will never ever be an invoicing DB. It's going to generate vacancy rates. And also, it will help the brokers with their deals, so they can have more property info at their fingertips. This DB "might" eventually be relied upon for contact info. This DB "might" eventually be relied upon for contact info history, using OLE embedded icons to attach pertinent documents. But not now. All this going round and round about how to deal with the Parties DB is making me crazy. Each party is either a person or a company. They can also be an architect or a developer or a management agent or a broker. Or their company can be. All of this can be displayed through portals. Is this really that hard? Or am I really thick? I don't expect it to be totally easy, but, really, I was hoping things might be less complicated.

I hope you will forgive this very frustrated post. And also I thank Pete and Ugo for all their intense work on this!

I can't believe you guys are still at it, while I was typing all that ...

We're all ma here, coming to discuss with americans at 5:23 am. And Chrstian is here also, following is dar code dilemna

Where are we going ? I like that too. Just the breakfast is hard to digest with those cigarettes in the ash tray...

Bonnie, do you understand my solution? Have you seen it yet? If yes, initial feedback would be welcome. What don't you like about it. It really is as easy as you are going to get (other than not storing any party info).

Pete

But Americans rule the world (you live in France, you know all about that)

Wait for an aussie to butt in now!

At this point the americans (l'americana) are just listening to the hyperactive europeans going at it, 6 hours later (5:30am) when they should be asleep! Christian is here too? this should be good ....

Peter I DID see your solution and I think it's super! I like it very much especially in light of being very overwhelmed by all this going back and forth (which means I haven't had time to tell you so). Also, I've been trying to find the time to have a look at Russell's namefinder (he'll be here next, and who knows what Christian might throw into the mix, he'll be sorry he found this thread) ...

phew you guys wear me out.

Bonnie, I am not looking for praise (hah!). No seriously, when you have the time I would rather know if it fundamentally does the job? Is it still too complicated for your requirements, etc. When you've had time to summise over all the bombardments let me know. Be brutal. Pete

hi all

just butting in cos i'm an aussie!

now you really all should be asleep. it's a reasonable hour here (nearly 2pm) but what's your excuses?

on a more serious note, i'd like to be having a look at what you're all talking about but i can't download it. i work on an all-windows network (afaik) so haven't been able to look at any of peter's uploaded samples. doh!

cheers,

wendy

Hi Wendy

I am pleased to see that, unlike so many other Aussie's in the forum, you have include a real picture of yourself.

You should still be able to open it, but I will get a file from my Mac onto my PC, and if you provide me your e-mail address I will send you a zipped version.

Send your e-mail address to me at [email protected] I will send it when I am up in the morning, but right now I am off to sheep. Sorry! sleep.

Pete

Wendy, I'm Bonnie and I started all this :. I'm still up (but not for long, like 5 minutes, I'm on the East Coast US. I'm bleary-eyed and it's only just after midnite. Never mind learning FM, I have a job and a couple of kids and a couple of houses, and I don't know how these guys in Europe do it - they must have good women, right?)

Here's Peter's file:

http://www.fmforums.com/threads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=67712&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1

Glad to have Aussies on board, especially women! (simmer down, you guys, I'm not trying to be inflammatory) Your take will be welcome!

I am off to sheep too (just saw Peter's post).

Bonnie

Wendy, ignore my post - I have emailed you the files. I hope they work now.

Anyway, Good night/morning everyone - See you all again soon.

Pete

Further to the key discussion above I have attached an updated version of possible solution. Remember, the key issue here is the ability to be able to bring parties into another database (properties). These parties are either companies or individuals (from 2 databases). Whereas the previous solution required a separate layout for creating a link to parties, this update provides a mechanism on the same layout. The mechanism is disabled when a party has been selected. Removing such selection provides the "selection' mechanism again. As before, I would like input as to any potential improvements to the fundamental structure of such mechanisms. (Download format: .sit)

Pete

Peter, you always sound so formal when you're offering up your solutions (examples)! We don't bite ... often ...

The other key here, everyone, is he's using 2 (TWO!) other files for parties (companies vs. individuals) - this was a major part of our discussion above - and a major part of my decision for my main DB and ER rationale.

The above download link doesn't work for me (Windows user). Peter you already emailed the files to me so I have them, thanks, but you might want to use a .zip format? instead of .sit? so maybe everyone else can see? Not sure why the download doesn't work for me. Is it working for everyone else?

It's not Thursday yet (my day to work solely on FM - it's been a hellatious week) but since I can't stay away from this I'm working into the night and will get right back to you about how it looks (first glance = SUPER). Of course I can never match Peter and Ugo for staying up until the birds are singing - but I've got about 4 hours in me.

I vote for a new thread, this one's getting unwieldy. 5 pages! If someone starts one before I get back, please let me know where it is and what it's called ...

(delving into Pete's files) Be back atcha in a couple - Bonnie

I've been looking at Peter's files and I'm sending comments to a new thread. I'll put it in "relationships" and I'll call it "multiple DBs 2". Hey, I think we're getting to the point where everyone agrees there needs to be 2 databases for people vs. companies, to feed into the main DB ...

I have started a new thread with the files attached in zip format. New thread: "one DB multi relationship (Thread 2)

take that back, Peter beat me to it (shame on you Pete for not telling us) - it's called "one DB with multiple relationships thread 2" - Bonnie

sorry Pete we are typing over each other !

new thread is:

http://www.fmforums.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB17&Number=68156&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1