|Subject||Re: [ib-support] Idea for a new field type for FB 2,0 or IB 7?|
>>but there are places where unbroken sequences areAs Helen suggested, the main examples I have come across relate to
> Any examples you can think of?
accounting requirements. Invoice and Remittance numbers generally.
Some clients have requested sequential client account numbers but can
generally be dissuaded when they realise there is no benefit.
Whether the requirement is a legal one (or thought to be a legal
requirement) or whether it is simply a preferred option does not
really matter. It need not be dismissed out of hand, because a
simple solution may be all that is required.
Not every database is going into an environment with hundreds of
users, not every requirement even in a large installation is going to
be hit by many users at once. And even if you fail those tests there
are generally batch mechanisms that can be implemented to maintain
I guess my point is; The customer may not always be right, but we
should be aiming to please where practical.
I am not voting for FB to implement such capabilities into the engine,
I think it is highly appropriate that the developer should be forced
to be aware of and think about this issue in the particular
circumstance and come up with an appropriate solution (even it the
solution is to talk the client out of the requirement).
I just wanted to post opposing view - there requirements for unbroken
sequences and just because a client is asking for one does not mean
they are wrong.