2010: Essential Diffs?
in [Help]
|
From: Albert D. Kallal on 9 Apr 2010 05:06 "The Frog" <mr.frog.to.you(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:63e8ec17-e764-4790-94bc-f0e3a21d9a3e(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > I was not aware of the table triggers - very cool. I > like using triggers and stored procedures in other db systems, > especially for controlling data entry. All data available through > 'views' Remember, the view in SQL server is the same thing as a saved select query in access. The reason why we don't call them views in Access is because saved queries can also be update queries, delete queries, append queries etc. So using the term "view" has nothing to do with the new JET table engine level triggers. We always had the ability to create a query and base a form/report etc. on a query in place of the table in Access. So, a simple saved select query in access can always been considered a view . This issue is unchanged in access. >and data entry through stored procedures only - no direct > table access. I wonder if that is possible now with Access 2010? We > shall see.... Nothing's really changed in this regards. Stored procedures don't necessarily mean that they can return tables as data. That only happens to be the case for SQL server. Stored procedures in Access don't return table data in that fashion at all. Be it oracle, mySQL, or SQL server, they all have their own particular dialects of table trigger coding systems and they are all different. However in the case of Access, we have really two types of triggers (before change (validation), and then the event triggers as a result of updates. They have to be lightweight and fast. You don't use nor write SQL for these table triggers (again, t-sql is different then everyone else's procedural language and JET is no different. Keep in mind also that these triggers have to be able to run even if VBA or ms access is not installed on your computer. This is at the jet engine level and the jet engine is still a file based system. There not a server or process running as a "service" system running on your computer. The new version of JET (called ACE since 2007) must be able to run and function without ms access installed. Now of course Access has always worked with SQL server, and nothing is stopping you from using sql server with Access like we always could. I would say good half of my applications I write and build in Access are running with SQL server as the back end. So, the triggers and procedures we have at the table level in jet are quite a bit different, and they not like t-sql, or Oracles pl/sql or even whatever mySql uses these days for their stored procedural language. > > What is happening with A2010 development? If one wishes to > professionally develop apps in A2010 what do we require? It's not really change from previous versions. I think the area of big change is the web publishing features. They allo you to build forms and reports that can be published to access "web" services. The server side needs what is called Access web services on a SharePoint server. > Is there a > developer edition? There is the developer extensions tools and the runtime system like Access has always had. Again for 2010 it will be a free download. So again there's nothing really changed here at all. This is just good old access, the upgrade from the previous versions to my knowledge will likely be the price the same as always and that is $109 dollars. > Do we need some form of visual studio? Is it .Net > integrated? No, not at all. It still the same old access as it's always been. On the other hand when you do create a web form inside of Access and publish it, it is turned into a .net form or so called XAML. When you publish an access report, it gets converted to SQL server reporting services or so called RDL (report definition language). However from an access developers point of view, it works much the same as always worked in the past. Keep in mind that when you create a form inside of Access, you can mix VBA forms and what are now called WEB forms. When you run these forms on the client side, they look pretty much the same as any old VBA form, but when you publish um they run inside of a browser. When you publish an Accis application with both VBA forms and WEB enabled forms, on the client side the VBA forms can call an open those web forms, and they look like regular access forms. However on the web site, the VBA forms can be launched, only the web enabled forms. > Is there a decent reference on the new macro language They'll be on MSDN, and the help files as always. > and > the new version of VBA? You should not notice any difference from the current version everyone is using. The only exception here is the new data types and a few new compiler directives that deal with the fact that you're on a 32 or 64 bit machine. Other than that, as a longtime access developer you won't see any difference. The only real big issue is this is a new version since it is a a true 64 bit version. This of course means that you existing windows API code will break and you have to modify it. > itself? Certification as a developer possible? I'm not sure who's offering Access certification these days, it's my impression for the last few years not a lot of companies are doing any type of Access certification anymore, I don't see it changing a lot with Access 2010. I do think where the learning curves are in Access 2010 is with building WEB applications. This is probably more psychological than it is technical issues. However for the actual code you write in forms does eventually gets converted to JavaScript that will run in your browser on your desktop, and I think that's pretty cool. However the code that you run and write for those web forms is not VBA (you use the new macro programming language in that case). -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal(a)msn.com
From: Albert D. Kallal on 9 Apr 2010 05:10 grrr...in hurry.. >However on the web site, the VBA forms can be launched, only the web >enabled forms. should read: However on the web site, the VBA forms can NOT be launched, only the web enabled forms.
From: Albert D. Kallal on 9 Apr 2010 13:29 "Allen Browne" <AllenBrowne(a)SeeSig.invalid> wrote in message news:XKmdnUPubrZTfSPWnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... > > "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in message > news:k3zvn.75691$NH1.69923(a)newsfe14.iad... >> sorry, using voice dictation here: >> >>> ridden customize = ribbon customize >> >>> right click on a Redmond = right click on a ribbon >> >>> now ridden development is far faster = now ribbon... > > LOL, Albert! > > Do you know how to get Redmond to act, so we are ridden of the ribbon? > :-) > Well, at least I laughing reading this. Voice dictation really does provide some humor even when I not trying to be funny. -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal(a)msn.com
From: (PeteCresswell) on 9 Apr 2010 17:24 Per Albert D. Kallal: >How big of post do you want? Just about exactly the size you wrote. Thanks!!! Sounds to me like it's time to cough up the bucks and renew my MSDN subscription. 2010 will run under XP, right? -- PeteCresswell
From: David W. Fenton on 10 Apr 2010 19:00
"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:FZyvn.75690$NH1.75377(a)newsfe14.iad: > I mean the new shared picture feature makes so much logical sense, > and is such an obvious feature I don't know why it wasn't asked > for here more frequently? All experienced developers would use > some link or external image so they don't bloat up the application > and this allows replacement of that ONE image such as a company > logo to be application wide. So an intelligent developer would > demand that only one copy of that image exist in the application. I've always done this by storing the images in a table local to the front end. This allows me to give them names and descriptions and such. I haven't done it much, though. I am in the process of implementing it in my current project, and the A2010 feature would, in fact, be a lot easier. But it's still not all that hard (particularly since I'm using common code to format appearance of all my forms so that I only have to write the image loading code in one place). -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |