2010: Essential Diffs?
in [Help]
|
From: David W. Fenton on 10 Apr 2010 19:02 "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:FZyvn.75690$NH1.75377(a)newsfe14.iad: > Table trigger makes a whole > class of problems really easy to solve. I think that implementing table-level triggers in a file-based database engine is something of a tour de force of software engineering. I have always made the case that one shouldn't expect a non-server database engine to have triggers or transaction logging, but now I can't say that any more! Maybe we'll even get transaction logging in the next version of Jet/ACE! -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 10 Apr 2010 19:05 "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:FZyvn.75690$NH1.75377(a)newsfe14.iad: > For example we often see questions and people here struggling to > write some code in the after update event of the "details" section > of a sub-form to total up some value. Now one can argue that > these aggregate totals should never be stored in the database. > Fact of the matter is a lot of times it is REALLY handy to do so. > It then makes writing of report's, and merges to word etc. VERY > easy. It means that when I writing code or a report that total > value is just handy dandy sitting there and I don't have stop and > start writing some query or some code to total up some value each > time I need it. Without table level triggers, it really was too > risky to store aggregate totals. The instant you have table level > triggers, then it makes sense to do so (and since this is a table > trigger then it not really such a bad practice from a > normalization point of view either). You're also leaving out the new calculated fields (I can't recall the name), which for a single-table calculation obviate any need to store the value at all (though I would guess it's actually handled behind the scenes with a hidden table-level data macro), so you'd just add the calculated field to your table's list of fields and be done with it, and not even have to set up the trigger. Right? -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 10 Apr 2010 19:19 "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:H7Cvn.96508$gF5.31712(a)newsfe13.iad: > Stored procedures Through encounters on StackOverflow, I came to realize that an Access parameter query has many of the characteristics of a stored procedure in a server database, except the ability to have procedural code. You make the point about saved SELECT QueryDefs, but also all the saved DML QueryDefs (Update, Insert, Delete) fall into the category of the simplest stored procedures. You've got the stored part right there. Add in parameters to any of those, and you've got the ability to accept arguments before running. All that was ever lacking was procedural code, and that continues to be the case with table-level data macros. A clue that these things that we call saved QueryDefs are "procedures" in a larger sense is that the ADO and DDL commands for creating them use the keyword "PROCEDURE" (as of Jet 4). So, as you point out, in terms of many capabilities, there's not that much of a change. The big change is that these things are now happening at the engine level, instead of in the front-end application, but that's pretty huge all by itself. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 10 Apr 2010 19:21 "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:H7Cvn.96508$gF5.31712(a)newsfe13.iad: > the > upgrade from the previous versions to my knowledge will likely be > the price the same as always and that is $109 dollars. Office 2010 has no upgrade pricing at all, in any form. My guess is that standalone apps will cost c. $200 each. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 10 Apr 2010 19:23
"(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote in news:em6vr5diie23113pgf48e7aks95hcjb6mf(a)4ax.com: > 2010 will run under XP, right? Only the 32-bit version. But that's the only version most people should be running, even on 64-bit Windows. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |