I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued fields option offered 
in Access 2007. But, as always, I get started very excited, but am unable to 
finish...

Not sure how to design my Form - but it would be a Main Form Sub Form
With ChurchID (as Main) and a Subform with 
PositionTitle1 (Non-repeating)
(Indented) MinisterName1
(Indented) MinisterName2
(Indented) MinisterName3
PositionTitle2 (Non-repeating)
(Indented) MinisterName1
(Indented) MinisterName2
(Indented) MinisterName3

I'm totally confused as to how to proceed... Can anyone assist?

Here is my Query (easy and straight forward) 

qryTieChurchNeedsToMinister

ChurchID, PosTitle, tblMinisterAssignment.MinisterLastNameFirstName.Value 
25, Music, Kirk  Arthur 
25, Music, James  Braswell 
25, Music, John  Duke 
25, Music, Brian  Lee 
25, Music, Tommy  Valentine 
25, Children, Matt Addington 
25, Children, Chris Aho 
25, Children, Joe  Aldrich 
25, Children, Michael  Aldridge 
25, Children, Allen  Allen 
25, Children, John  Allen 
25, Children, Anna  Anderson 
25, Children, Mary Carol  Anderson 
25, Children, Joshua  Apple 
25, Children, Kirk  Arthur 

IMNSHO, there is no good answer to your question except: back up, start 
over, and avoid multi-value fields like the plague. Also, IMNSHO, those were 
included to allow support of existing non-relational data in SharePoint and 
that is the only valid use for them (except for the case when that data will 
ONLY, EVER be read by humans without any further manipulation or proccessing 
in Access -- a situation that is difficult for me to imagine). Finally, 
penultimately IMNSHO, it does not speak well of the judgement or learning 
ability (because of the plethora of advice from experienced Access 
developers here and elsewhere to avoid using multi-valued fields) of an 
Access user who chooses to use this feature in any other circumstance than 
what I described.

-- 
Larry Linson, Microsoft Office Access MVP
Co-author: "Microsoft Access Small Business Solutions", published by Wiley
Access newsgroup support is alive and well in USENET 
comp.databases.ms-access

Larry's advice here is, indeed, reflective of the advice given by evey
experienced developer in Access that I know of! Your statement

"I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued fields"

indicates that you know this to be true and are simply ignoring the accepted
wisdom! Do you really expect anyone here to help you in this foolish quest?

-- 
There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!

Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003

Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006/1

Well, this is a MICROSOFT Forum so you'd think that somehow there would be a 
few "adopters" of the Mystic Access Programmers product.  hummmm.

PS: you'r right I was a bit reluctant to try this, but I was reluctant to 
try PC computers 30 years ago...

Thanks..

Any multivalue believers out there??

Jim

"Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com" wrote:

> Larry's advice here is, indeed, reflective of the advice given by evey
> experienced developer in Access that I know of! Your statement
> 
> "I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued fields"
> 
> indicates that you know this to be true and are simply ignoring the accepted
> wisdom! Do you really expect anyone here to help you in this foolish quest?
> 
> -- 
> There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!
> 
> Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003
> 
> Message posted via AccessMonster.com
> http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006/1
> 
> .
> 

Currently in my Query I'm getting what is needed, but unfortunately in my 
SubForm based on the query I'm getting:

Music, #NAME? 
Music, #NAME?
Music, #NAME?
Music, #NAME?
Music, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?
Children, #NAME?

So Close, But YET so FAR from right!!!



"JMay" wrote:

> Well, this is a MICROSOFT Forum so you'd think that somehow there would be a 
> few "adopters" of the Mystic Access Programmers product.  hummmm.
> 
> PS: you'r right I was a bit reluctant to try this, but I was reluctant to 
> try PC computers 30 years ago...
> 
> Thanks..
> 
> Any multivalue believers out there??
> 
> Jim
> 
> "Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com" wrote:
> 
> > Larry's advice here is, indeed, reflective of the advice given by evey
> > experienced developer in Access that I know of! Your statement
> > 
> > "I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued fields"
> > 
> > indicates that you know this to be true and are simply ignoring the accepted
> > wisdom! Do you really expect anyone here to help you in this foolish quest?
> > 
> > -- 
> > There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!
> > 
> > Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003
> > 
> > Message posted via AccessMonster.com
> > http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006/1
> > 
> > .
> > 

=?Utf-8?B?Sk1heQ==?= <JMay@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:A784D56B-F46F-42E5-BAEB-92C23E666B1C@microsoft.com: 

> Currently in my Query I'm getting what is needed, but
> unfortunately in my SubForm based on the query I'm getting:
> 
> Music, #NAME? 
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Music, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> Children, #NAME?
> 
> So Close, But YET so FAR from right!!!
> 
The results you are getting is why anyone who has experience in 
Access states loudly and firmly "DO NOT USE MULTI-VALUED FIELDS!"


> 
> 
> "JMay" wrote:
> 
>> Well, this is a MICROSOFT Forum so you'd think that somehow there
>> would be a few "adopters" of the Mystic Access Programmers
>> product.  hummmm. 
>> 
>> PS: you'r right I was a bit reluctant to try this, but I was
>> reluctant to try PC computers 30 years ago...
>> 
>> Thanks..
>> 
>> Any multivalue believers out there??
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> "Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com" wrote:
>> 
>> > Larry's advice here is, indeed, reflective of the advice given
>> > by evey experienced developer in Access that I know of! Your
>> > statement 
>> > 
>> > "I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued
>> > fields" 
>> > 
>> > indicates that you know this to be true and are simply ignoring
>> > the accepted wisdom! Do you really expect anyone here to help
>> > you in this foolish quest? 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat!
>> > 
>> > Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003
>> > 
>> > Message posted via AccessMonster.com
>> > http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006
>> > /1 
>> > 
>> > .
>> > 

JMay wrote:
>I have Chosen (big Grin) to utilize the new Multivalued fields option offered 
>in Access 2007. But, as always, I get started very excited, but am unable to 
>finish...

Let me put it this way.  In a previous life, I supported FileMaker when it
went "relational" (I use the term loosely!)  The FIRST thing we did was learn
to convert repeating fields into a proper structure (put them in another
table).  I guess the moral of the story is this:

Just because MS can be talked into implementing something stupid doesn't mean
you should use it.

-- 
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201006/1