Definitely no offense and also definitely no attack.  Sometimes we post counter questions or make comments if we do not understand a particular request entirely or to clarify that we understand where you were coming from.  In any case, we got it and will add it to the list!

Hello Trent!

 I'm coming directly from the topic of the message!

Exactly that's what I meant. I love to have the framework do the routine work. I thought there the part '...work' is coming from, isn't it?

Very nice to hear, I thank you very much. I beg your pardon if I was impatient or offended you in any way. This was not my intention. Sorry about that, Trent. Some days are hard to take... especially if they attack me all at once.

Thank's again and friendly greetings,

Ralph

I think that I get where you are coming from.  I agree that it would be easier to increment the name for subsequent column names.  This would be a farily easy thing to implement in a future build.  I will add it to the list.

Hello Trent,

the reason is that I thought, an identifier should be unique to identify something. But maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe I'm even wrong in thinking, that's the reason Microsoft did it this way.

Sorry for asking stupid questions.

You are right, I can make the identifiers unique as well by myself, if necessary.

I pull back my question.

Thank you very much and friendly greetings,

Ralph

Well, the reason we don't do that by default is for backward compatibility..and core logic.  By default, the column name use used for identification.  So there would be a number of underlying things that would have to be changed (as well as a lot of logic in the field for existing users).

I guess I don't really understand why you would need this anyway.  If you could help me better understand why this approach is better than the other it might help be understand your view better.

Hello,

I tried the newest beta and had a look at the new identifier textbox for browse-dialog search fields. The new identifier helps me a lot, because I was fighting with the known issues not to have it. Great is the default:

> If this identifier is left empty, the field name will be used.

This saves me much time in typing something in. But wouldn't it be possible to have not only the field name as default and to add something like VS does for on a form dropped objects like label1, label2, label3 and so on?

Thank you very much for consider this!

Friendly greetings,

Ralph