By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
460,023 Members | 1,297 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 460,023 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

List & Tree control accept only 32767 items

P: n/a
Are there any other controls which could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting only 32767 items.

thanks a lot in advance.

Jun 29 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
12 Replies


P: n/a
On Jun 29, 12:29 am, Chris <CLar...@gmail.comwrote:
Are there any other controls which could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting only 32767 items.

thanks a lot in advance.
I think sometimes we must ask ourselves if we really want to present
more than 32,767 options to an end user in a listbox or treeview. For
example, rather than asking a user to select from a list of all ZIP
codes in the US (over 40,000) I might first ask them to select a state
and then limit the list of ZIPs to only those within the selected
state. Is there a way to pre-limit your list by adding another
control?

Bruce

Jun 29 '07 #2

P: n/a
rkc
Chris wrote:
Are there any other controls which could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting only 32767 items.

thanks a lot in advance.
That's to keep you from trying to add 32768 items to a list.
32768 has been scientifically identified as the point at which
your users will want to beat you completely senseless.
Jun 30 '07 #3

P: n/a

"rkc" <rk*@rkcny.yabba.dabba.do.comschreef in bericht news:46**********************@roadrunner.com...
Chris wrote:
>Are there any other controls which could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting only 32767 items.

thanks a lot in advance.
That's to keep you from trying to add 32768 items to a list.
32768 has been scientifically identified as the point at which
your users will want to beat you completely senseless.
A good laugh always makes my day ... thanks rkc !

Arno R
Jun 30 '07 #4

P: n/a
"Chris" <CL*****@gmail.comwrote
Are there any other controls which
could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting
only 32767 items.
Anyone who'd present himself with 32767 items to be searched by scrolling is
a masochist; anyone who'd present those 32767 items to his users is a
sadist. It's time for you to determine a more user-friendly approach to
finding the data that's needed, or to hire a user interface designer.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Jul 1 '07 #5

P: n/a
Hi -

You might take a look at Allen Browne's approach at
http://allenbrowne.com/ser-32.html

HTH - Bob

Larry Linson wrote:
Are there any other controls which
could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting
only 32767 items.

Anyone who'd present himself with 32767 items to be searched by scrolling is
a masochist; anyone who'd present those 32767 items to his users is a
sadist. It's time for you to determine a more user-friendly approach to
finding the data that's needed, or to hire a user interface designer.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200707/1

Jul 1 '07 #6

P: n/a
Thanks guys for your messages. It seems there is no solution..

I am not a masochist :-) The list of products I have in some
categories are more than 32,767.... There is no way to pre-limit my
list by adding another control. It's up to the user whether they will
select all of them or fewer... I don't know what analysis they can
make with some many items, but..... That's the system requirements.. :-
(

Jul 2 '07 #7

P: n/a
At the very least you can group them by first letter/number in the product
name or ID.

"Chris" <CL*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@m36g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
Thanks guys for your messages. It seems there is no solution..

I am not a masochist :-) The list of products I have in some
categories are more than 32,767.... There is no way to pre-limit my
list by adding another control. It's up to the user whether they will
select all of them or fewer... I don't know what analysis they can
make with some many items, but..... That's the system requirements.. :-
(

Jul 2 '07 #8

P: n/a
Chris -

Do you really believe that one individual is going to be able to
intelligently deal with 32,000+ options in one shot? Sounds like you are
vastly intimidated by your supervisiors who apparently don't have a clue. My
solution would be to ask them to provide their personal working example as to
how they would deal with the 32,000+ options. My guess is that they'd go
dumb in a heart-beat and probably beat-up on you for failing to meet the goal.
You are dealing with idiots! Brush up your resume!

Chris, look at it. No one has 32,0000+ options memorized, thus they're
working from some sort of a list. Allen Browne's approach, which I pointed
to in a previous post, appears to be (perhaps with modification) a most
intelligent approach.

Grow up -- Bob

Chris wrote:
>Thanks guys for your messages. It seems there is no solution..

I am not a masochist :-) The list of products I have in some
categories are more than 32,767.... There is no way to pre-limit my
list by adding another control. It's up to the user whether they will
select all of them or fewer... I don't know what analysis they can
make with some many items, but..... That's the system requirements.. :-
(
--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200707/1

Jul 3 '07 #9

P: n/a
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:30:02 GMT, "Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.notwrote:
>"Chris" <CL*****@gmail.comwrote
Are there any other controls which
could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting
only 32767 items.

Anyone who'd present himself with 32767 items to be searched by scrolling is
a masochist; anyone who'd present those 32767 items to his users is a
sadist. It's time for you to determine a more user-friendly approach to
finding the data that's needed, or to hire a user interface designer.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Larry,

May I please quote you in the access report group?

Chris,

Is there some reasonable way you could break the items into two or more groups
then present the data with the groups appended to one another? Even if this
works, Larry is still right.

Chuck
--
Jul 3 '07 #10

P: n/a

"Chuck" <li*****@schoollink.netwrote in message
news:3b********************************@4ax.com...
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:30:02 GMT, "Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not>
wrote:
>>"Chris" <CL*****@gmail.comwrote
Are there any other controls which
could replace List & Tree controls,
because they have limitation of accepting
only 32767 items.

Anyone who'd present himself with 32767 items to be searched by scrolling
is
a masochist; anyone who'd present those 32767 items to his users is a
sadist. It's time for you to determine a more user-friendly approach to
finding the data that's needed, or to hire a user interface designer.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

Larry,

May I please quote you in the access report group?
You certainly may... anything I post publicly can be freely quoted.

Larry

P.S. It is certainly possible to use techniques other than scrolling to make
it less painful to find the needle in the greater-than-32767-haystack. On
the other hand, I have observed very few situations where you are, or should
be, scanning a vast population looking for something to "stand out".

Much more often, you have a value and you want to know whether it is part of
the subject population. In that case, just a text box to enter the known
value (and perhaps a second to verify that you properly entered the first)
would be preferrable to scanning.

Larry


Jul 3 '07 #11

P: n/a
rkc
Larry Linson wrote:
>
Much more often, you have a value and you want to know whether it is part of
the subject population. In that case, just a text box to enter the known
value (and perhaps a second to verify that you properly entered the first)
would be preferrable to scanning.

Larry
Who came up with the "a second to verify that you properly entered the
first" concept any way? Was it before cut & paste was invented?
Jul 4 '07 #12

P: n/a

"rkc" <rk*@rkcny.yabba.dabba.do.comwrote in message
news:46**********************@roadrunner.com...
Larry Linson wrote:
>>
Much more often, you have a value and you want to know whether it is part
of the subject population. In that case, just a text box to enter the
known value (and perhaps a second to verify that you properly entered the
first) would be preferrable to scanning.

Larry

Who came up with the "a second to verify that you properly entered the
first" concept any way? Was it before cut & paste was invented?
It's possibly a carryover from the days of keypunched cards... they punched
the cards on one machine (a keypunch) and then ran the deck through another
machine (a verifier), retyping the data... if the retyping did not match
what had been punched, it was repositioned in the deck for manual review.

AFAIK, the error was just as likely to be in the verifier step as in the
initial punching, but the powers-that-were seemed to believe it was useful.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP (with a previous "incarnation" as a mainframer)

Jul 4 '07 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.