From: michelljb@aol.com   
      
   Leslie,   
      
   Initially, I had the same reaction as you.....Paradox system - OPal,   
   Forms - Data Models - Reports - Data structures that ALL are dependent   
   on, being converted to a "like" system in Access....big project.  Even   
   if you are experienced in both, it's a project.  But then when his   
   further posts were asking for basic database structure, I thought, well   
   maybe we are over-complicating this, and he just needs to know if   
   Paradox tables have compatible field types to Access, so when doing a   
   simple import, there would be no surprises.  I know that importing a   
   Paradox table to Access is a no-brainer in most cases, but what if the   
   Paradox table has a field type that Access can't cope with?  I was   
   looking at his questions in that vein.   
      
   I haven't seen anything in his posts that suggests system replacement,   
   so I didn't go there.   
      
   I found no fault with the tone of any of your post, Leslie.  I can't   
   speak for Dominick, but I think at that point he was on a roll, and any   
   negativity would be treated like an attack.   
      
   Again, I'll say, I had and have, no problem with cautioning someone who   
   might really WANT a position with a client, but who may not be qualified   
   to hold it.  However, he seemed to be getting that response in spades,   
   so it hardly was productive for me to do likewise.   
      
   I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  He asked how a Paradox   
   table is structured, and I gave him field types.  Never said I was   
   giving the schematics to the universe, just giving him the basics.  He   
   is probably vague about what he needs to know, because the client hasn't   
   given him enough information yet.   
      
      
   Leslie Milburn wrote:ex   
   > Hi Michelle,   
   >   
   > I always understood the question to be basically about data migration but I   
   > can also see that based upon the phrasing used it was probably more,   
   > otherwise the OP would know to just open the tables directly in ACCESS and   
   > copy them over and then work fully within the environment he is comfortable   
   > with. Hence no issue in any case.   
   >   
   > BUT, in some projects that will not be enough. I have worked on projects   
   > especially older ones where data *not* being present meant something. In   
   > order to know under which scenarios data would not be present required   
   > access to the business rules. To read the business rules in P4W would   
   > require navigational knowledge in order to locate the code in the first   
   > place (Not usually centrally located in older apps), and then you would need   
   > to be fairly proficient in OPAL to then read the code etc.   
   >   
   > In other words there is a difference between transference of data and system   
   > replacement, just like there is a difference between a Business Analyst and   
   > a Systems Analyst, close but maybe not close enough.   
   >   
   > I should also point out that my tone was clear and concise and he can take   
   > it or leave it. BUT know this, a good interviewer cannot be fooled and it   
   > really is that simple. If the OP is comfortable with his approach then I for   
   > one do not care and I wish him well.   
   > Leslie.   
   >   
   >   
   > "Michelle Burnore"  wrote in message   
   > news:4893919f$1@pnews.thedbcommunity.com...   
   >> All your questions are very valid, Steve, and no, I know that would not be   
   >> enough for anyone to use Paradox.  The point, I think, is that the client   
   >> wants someone who knows Access, and can convert Paradox tables to it.  He   
   >> didn't mention anything about having to dig into code, so I am not   
   >> assuming that is the case.  If he DOES have to convert OPal into Access   
   >> Basic (although why in the world would you?), then you are right. Basic   
   >> info on file types was all he asked for.  If his questions start going   
   >> deeper, than we'll go deeper.   
   >>   
   >> I've been programming in Paradox DOS for 20 years and in Paradox Windows   
   >> for 13.  There isn't any way to learn that stuff and get proficient at it   
   >> in the time span he has, which is why I was assuming he didn't need to go   
   >> that deep.   
   >>   
   >> I had no problem with you guys cautioning him that he might be in over his   
   >> head.  I don't think he did either.  The problem was the tone used and the   
   >> accusations that came with it.   
   >>   
   >> ~Michelle   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)