Hello,

I am in the planning phase of a new database that incorporates keeping
track of donors (they can be individuals or companies).

Obviously, there is more basic information about a company than let's
say the individual. With the company I have a contact name, the
company name, physical location and mailing addresses different for
some, etc. Since I want to be able to keep track of donations and
correspondence with both individuals and companies, how do I do this
effectively? Would I need to separate out into two separate databases
(individuals/companies)? If I do, how would I keep of all of the
financials together, contacts, etc without having to double the
layouts, scripts etc. for each group? How would I do reports that
involve the amounts of both groups taken together, etc.?

What would ben effective way to layout this database? If I put them
into the same database, what do I do with all of the extra fields that
don't apply to the other? Seems a little non sequitur.

Thanks for any input.

Stephen

<stephen.wallace (AT) agmd (DOT) org> wrote:

Stephen,
You may put them into a single database with an extra field 'category' =
person or company. The empty fields that are not used in a category
don't take up any noticeable file space or processing time. In a script
going from a list to a detail layout, you may send the user to different
layouts, depending on category.
--
Hans Rijnbout
Utrecht, Netherlands

Put the common fields to both individuals and companies on tab one.
Put additional fields on tab two. Put a portal to the donations on
tab three. Tab layouts are so nice.
TK

On Jun 14, 3:34 pm, jri... (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl (Hans Rijnbout) wrote:

In article
<1181875817.805651.133060 (AT) i38g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com>TKnTexas
<tkntexas55 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

observed, resulting in an ultimately unreadable thread.
The first reply was bottom-posted.

The second was top-posted.

This one is bottom-posted.

Helpful Harry maintains that the 'netiquette standard is
bottom-posting. I don't know if I agree with having to scroll to the
bottom of a long thread to read the latest post.
What I would advocate is that we simply do what has already been done:
wherever the first reply is, please follow that lead.
Matt


--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Matt WIlls <Im (AT) Witz (DOT) End> writes:

see signature

jens

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

In article <ups3wx52s.fsf (AT) jensteich (DOT) de> Jens Teich <info (AT) jensteich (DOT) de>
wrote:

consider how documents are filed in a folder: most recent first. Work
your way back as need be.
But, as I said, I don't really care which one method is used. It is
far more important that only one is used in a given message.
Matt