Working with Jacked up table names & field names

(Please read the ENTIRE post)
I'm going to add some additional functionality to an existing database that
has jacked up table & field names. There are only a handful, but given my
time constraints I can't fix things now - like I should. From this point
forward, I'd like to use naming conventions that make sense. Here's what I'm
planning on doing...

1) My new objects will be in a separate MDB linked back to the existing
database. Ultimately, it will be a traditionally split database design.

2) Instead of linking my forms and reports DIRECTLY to the linked queries,
I'm going to create simple select queries that use expressions to convert the
jacked up field names to a common naming convention.

3) Once the queries are ready, the new forms and reports will be based on
them. Since the field names will technically be the same, all I'll have to do
is change the record source to reflect the change in table names.

In a sense, I'll be providing an alias of sorts for the jacked up names. The
temporary queries will server as an intermediate layer of sorts.

The total number of forms and reports in both databases will be VERY
minimal, so we're not discussing anything major.

Any ideas? Has anyone else tried this?

Note: I've been working with Access for nearly 10 years now and have
encountered a wide variety of situations (but have never had to try this) and
I'm fully aware of the cavet and pitfalls of trying to change object names
too deep into development.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:31:00 -0700, dch3
wrote:

Note: I've been working with Access for nearly 10 years now and have
encountered a wide variety of situations (but have never had to try this) and
I'm fully aware of the cavet and pitfalls of trying to change object names
too deep into development.

I don't see anything really wrong with your proposal, other than that you may
take a performance hit by forcing JET to process two queries for every one you
really want...

But: have you considered making a copy of the database; turning on the
much-maligned Name Autocorrect feature; opening each query in design view to
force Access to perceive it; and then changing the fieldnames?

At worst you will corrupt a spare copy of the database and waste a few
minutes. At best you may fix your names.

Do turn off Name Autocorrect when you're done of course!
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]

I concur with John's remarks.
I would like to offer a suggestion. Below is a link to a really good Find
and Replace utility that will allow you to fix all your bad names easily. I
have used it extensively and find it very reliable. It will take very little
time to correct all the bad names. It will actually save you time because
you wont have to go back and make corrections at a later date. It is
probably the best $39.00 US I have ever spent on software. It will change
names in all your objects.

http://www.rickworld.com/download.html

--
Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP


"dch3" wrote:

(Please read the ENTIRE post)
I'm going to add some additional functionality to an existing database that
has jacked up table & field names. There are only a handful, but given my
time constraints I can't fix things now - like I should. From this point
forward, I'd like to use naming conventions that make sense. Here's what I'm
planning on doing...

1) My new objects will be in a separate MDB linked back to the existing
database. Ultimately, it will be a traditionally split database design.

2) Instead of linking my forms and reports DIRECTLY to the linked queries,
I'm going to create simple select queries that use expressions to convert the
jacked up field names to a common naming convention.

3) Once the queries are ready, the new forms and reports will be based on
them. Since the field names will technically be the same, all I'll have to do
is change the record source to reflect the change in table names.

In a sense, I'll be providing an alias of sorts for the jacked up names. The
temporary queries will server as an intermediate layer of sorts.

The total number of forms and reports in both databases will be VERY
minimal, so we're not discussing anything major.

Any ideas? Has anyone else tried this?

Note: I've been working with Access for nearly 10 years now and have
encountered a wide variety of situations (but have never had to try this) and
I'm fully aware of the cavet and pitfalls of trying to change object names
too deep into development.