Access 2010 with Sharepoint 2010
in [Help]
|
From: David W. Fenton on 7 Nov 2009 19:14 "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:BkmJm.1895$dc2.1857(a)newsfe20.iad: > I also started > ussing the free on-line edition of sharepoint at > www.officelive.com. But is it not the case that Office Live does not support all the features of full Sharepoint Server? Sure, it's got user restrictions, so would not necessarily be appropriate for deployment but still useful for development, but you seem to be arguing that our clients should host their apps on a public website that is not controlled by them? This seems to me to be a very problematic suggestion. Remember how well a Microsoft subsidiary took care of the data of all those T-Mobile Sidekick users... -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Albert D. Kallal on 7 Nov 2009 21:23 "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9CBCC2A93B81Df99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.91... > "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in > news:BkmJm.1895$dc2.1857(a)newsfe20.iad: > > But that's a huge problem, Albert. As enthusiastic as I am about the > new things you're telling us about, I still see it as only viable > internally or over a VPN because IIS is just not viable as a web > server exposed directly to the Internet. The above never been a problem for me. My original hosing was Linux based (was some stupid cheap-o package) at about $12 a month. I needed + wanted ms SQL server, so I switch up (same provider) to a windows web site. It was only about $2 more. I think every major web hosting provider offers both windows or Linux based these days. I never seen or heard that purchasing very cheap-o windows based web sites is expensive. I mean basic hosting of a web site with 10 ms SQL server databases is $6.75 over here: http://www.dotster.com/products/hosting/plans/basic So, no, I don't buy that IIS is not viable and I found MANY super cheap and VERY wide available and affordable hosting for windows these days. Go Daddy starts Linux plans at $4.99 per month. For windows plans they start...let me check...oh, golly...same price, a big huge $4.99 per month! So, darn near everyone has this stuff, darn near everyone sells both Linux or windows, and darn near everyone is cheap as dirt... > Windows web hosts are more > expensive and less plentiful than your usual LAMP hosting providers, Well, $6.75 is cheap. In the above for dotster, if you downgrade to Linux, it only $5.75. Really a few dollars difference is just not an issue. As mentioned, for Go Daddy, they seem to be charging the same per month for either system. I can remember when the above type of systems use to be about $25 per month. That stuff has become a super cheap-o commodity these days. I seen SharePoint hosting for $15 a month now. So, these types of month fees are pocket change for just about any type of business. The cloud is coming, like it or not. It makes little if any sense for a business to even have a server now. You can see that LA city council choose Google as a replacement for office on the desktop. The same goes for some School districts. They going 100% cloud and they don't care about a really good word processor. Any half baked system that works anywhere and everywhere without having to upgrade the software is how this whole thing is going. Computing as a utility system like electricity is knocking on our door step and it here to stay... -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal(a)msn.com
From: Albert D. Kallal on 7 Nov 2009 22:07 "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9CBCC354C8849f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.91... > > How else can you figure out what's not going to work as well in the > browser as in Access itself? Surely you're not claiming that 100% of > an Access app is going to convert to the browser-based Sharepoint > version and have exactly the same performance and ease of use? Well, actually, yes I kind of am making this claim. You certainly have to deal with increased latency, but on the other hand since there's no data transfer down the wire, you actually get some bonuses perofrmance also. You certanly have to choose a "web database" option for this to happen. When you do this access will restrict your feature set to web only features -- in fact this option even automatically restricts the macro feature set available for you. So, for web forms you see a reduced set of form events in the Property sheet for example. You also see a reduced set of events that appear for controls on your forms. At that point what you build on the desktop will go up to sharepoint exactly as it is with all of its event code, on-dirty, on-curret code etc. All of it should/will work the same in the browser. You have to use macro code (they added embeeded macros in 2007 but it really was for 2010!). No question there going to be a somewhat different of an experiance of running in an browsser, but it those differences minor and something you'll learn after publishing a few forms. From that point on there not really much differnce . The fidelity and how those forms render in a browser is absolutely stunning....nothing short of increiable.. So, yes, I am saying there is almost no reason to have the server bits running during the development process. I had the access 2010 technical preview for almost a month before we actually got some server space to play with. I wrote that booking application before I ever had touched or seen the sharepoint side. So, I was able to develop an application to 100% on the desktops without never having any server system anywhere. The day I received some server space, was the day I published that application to the web. The only reason why there was problems because it was a early beta product. Access will tell you if that database is compatible with the web. If the web app passes the compatibility checker (and it should if you started out developing a web only application), then it will publish up to SharePoint). As I said, compared to any other web development systems, you'll not be playing with connection strings, you'll not be playing with HTML, you'll not be playing with some database server. You'll simply be working with your little local access system like you've always done. Now you MUST design forms in the new layout mode. This feature came in access 2007. In fact the new form layout view and control layout features in access 2007 were done this way as a precursor to the web forms that were comming in acess 2010. > Testing on all the target deployment platforms is not just a matter > of getting a thrill but a necessary part of any serious developer's > basic responsibilities. That's true. When I build an access application now, I build and develop the system on my machine. I as a general rule can assume that when I deploy to the client system, it will work the same. So for web stuff, the paradigm is pretty darn similar for me. You really can develop most if not all of your application on the desktop before you ever attempt to publish it... -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal(a)msn.com
From: lyle fairfield on 8 Nov 2009 03:09 On Nov 7, 10:07 pm, "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...(a)msn.com> wrote: > As I said, compared to any other web development systems, you'll not be > playing with connection strings, you'll not be playing with HTML, you'll not > be playing with some database server. You'll simply be working with your > little local access system like you've always done. In future rankings of world-wide disaster where do you think this will fit among h1n1, islamic terrorism and stephen harper?
From: David W. Fenton on 8 Nov 2009 20:06
"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:oYpJm.3847$W77.1307(a)newsfe11.iad: > "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:Xns9CBCC2A93B81Df99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.91... >> "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in >> news:BkmJm.1895$dc2.1857(a)newsfe20.iad: > >> >> But that's a huge problem, Albert. As enthusiastic as I am about >> the new things you're telling us about, I still see it as only >> viable internally or over a VPN because IIS is just not viable as >> a web server exposed directly to the Internet. > > The above never been a problem for me. My original hosing was > Linux based (was some stupid cheap-o package) at about $12 a > month. I needed + wanted ms SQL server, so I switch up (same > provider) to a windows web site. It was only about $2 more. You're not addressing the real issue there, which is not availability of windows-based web hosting or its cost, but the fact that it's IIS that has to be used as the web server in order to do ASP. This is a crucial problem as IIS still keeps having major security issues over and over again. It's simply not ready for prime time as an HTTP server. [irrelevant discussion of availability and cost of Windows hosting snipped] > The cloud is coming, like it or not. I think the cloud is a huge problem -- just look at the loss of data that a Microsoft subsidiary caused for T-Mobile Sidekick users. > It makes little if any sense for a > business to even have a server now. I think that's just a completely crazy position to take. Can you really trust a 3rd party to back up your data? To secure it from others? To not mine it for their own purposes? No, there is no form of "cloud computing" that I'll be recommending to my clients any time soon. It's just got too many issues that are outside the control of the client, not least of which could be complete data loss (as in the case of Sidekick users). > You can see that LA city council choose > Google as a replacement for office on the desktop. A really dumb decision, in my opinion. It's nuts to give Google so much power. They are now coming under scrutiny from the US Justice Dept. for possible anti-trust infractions because they control too many things (the Google Books situation is a prime example). I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket. I want a diverse software ecosystem, and that's one of the other reasons that I've chosen the LAMP stack for my web development activities. It would have been much easier for me to go with ASP and Windows hosting, but I felt it was better to keep diversity and support other platforms. I have not been disappointed in that regard -- Apache, for one, has been a far safer and more secure HTTP server than IIS. > The same goes for some > School districts. They going 100% cloud and they don't care about > a really good word processor. Any half baked system that works > anywhere and everywhere without having to upgrade the software is > how this whole thing is going. Computing as a utility system like > electricity is knocking on our door step and it here to stay... I think you're wildly overoptimistic. What I see is that something like Google Docs is mildly useful for casual users (my roommate and I maintain our household budget/expenses in Google Docs), but for serious use, it just isn't sufficient. And what happens when there's an outage in your Internet connectivity? I really don't think you've thought this one through. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |