I guess I was thinking in these terms: 1) ID's are static, non changing, regardless of the subject of the data (Customer, etc...).
2) Archival data would be duplicated in a separate DB with whatever supporting info is required, such as timestamps, with no ability for mods by users. So, a revised statement would be stored in addition to the original. The down sides are: 1) maintaining duplicate structures 2) sharing documents with other systems, as Larry pointed out, would be an additional effort 3) If you deal with scanned documents (or simply docs outside of R:Base) that share the context you still need code for managing them. It's always interesting <g> Ben On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:53 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand the point to a degree. An actual paper print out is a > physical document. > > A PDF stored on a hard drive is still a set of binary bits on a spinning > platter. > > > > Storing a PDF is simply storing it in Adobe's format versus Rbase's > format. The > > end result, is that it is re-created when sent to a printer, not the format > it is stored in. > > Binary data on a hard drive is still binary data regardless of Rbase or > Adobe. > > > > It is true, if you need to have a picture perfect copy, then your Rbase > needs to store > > all the data needed to recreate the original statement. Which is what you > are doing in > > the PDF, it is simply being stored outside Rbase. No difference. You > still have to create > > Rbase programming to manage this external data, which is usually less > efficient than > > managing RBase tables. > > > > If customers names/data change, then you still have to maintain a cross > reference in Rbase to > > the files you stored outside. Something I would find a > little more difficult than if it were all in > > Rbase. > > > > So the real question is... is the data more efficiently stored in PDF form > or Rbase form. I am > > sure that question has a different answer for different people. > > > > -Bob > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:29:55 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central > Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Printing a bunch of PDF files > > I agree with Larry. I like having PDF files rather than regenerating > as Bob suggested. You have a time-stamped PDF file that "proves" > what you invoiced on a certain date, rather than regenerating the data > right now. If you re-generate the data later, you have to be careful of > things like client names and addresses. At this client, their customers > (the general public) can change their names (get married), move... So > you need to prove exactly where and to whom you sent the invoice. If > you store the data in a table, you have to store the name/address as it > was at the time of the invoice, and not do a current lookup based on the > customer ID. That IS how we do it right now since we can't store a PDF > file, but again a PDF file is a better picture of what happened way back > when. > > Karen > > > Here are the benefits that I see to keeping archival PDFs *in addition > to*data: > > > A backup of important documents. > > > A time-stamped record of the appearance and contents of certain documents > at the time of generation. > > > Ability to fulfill document requests without using the database. > > > The possibility of maintaining "paper" copies of records without > maintaining any actual paper. > > > Integration with other document based systems (such as Sharepoint). > > > -- > Larry > > >
