Access 2010 with Sharepoint 2010
in [Help]
|
From: David W. Fenton on 13 Nov 2009 14:17 "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPoster(a)FortuneJames.com> wrote in news:34adb3fe-48c9-43ae-b07e-a80155c3cc58(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.co m: > On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "David W. Fenton" > <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: >> "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...(a)msn.com> wrote >> innews:F5OKm.4853$dc2.3463(a)newsfe20.iad: >> >> > When you see the long list of functions that disappear when >> > inside of a form's code, you simply can't believe how the heck >> > you going to write an application. >> >> I assume you replace all of this stuff with macros, right? > > In: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/65f3941 > f7de8a50a > > David Fenton said: > >>CDMAPos...(a)FortuneJames.com wrote in >>news:1140552410.467804.115390(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >>> Stephen Lebans wrote: >>>> James where in the world did you read that VBA is no longer >>>> available with Access 12? Do you know how ludicrous your >>>> statement is? >> >>> Whew. I'm glad it was ludicrous. I thought VBA was history. >> >>Do you realize what a dis-service you've done to this newsgroup by >>posting the things you've posted here? You've created a set of >>rumors that someone searching Google Groups may encounter, which >>may end up as misinformation that propagates far beyond this >>particular thread. >> >>If you didn't have any actual proof for any of your assertions, >>then you shouldn't have made such ridiculous statements. >> >>I'm beginning to recall now why I had killfiled your previous >>email address. I haven't yet decided if I'll be plonking this one, >>too. > > In: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/d1ad8db > 081df7fdd > > I quoted from Jeffrey Richter: > > ...Visual Basic .NET (which now subsumes Visual Basic Scripting > Edition, or VBScript, and Visual Basic for Applications, or > VBA)... > > > so perhaps the idea is not as ludicrous now as it was back then. But VBA is not being replaced. You won't have to use macros except if you're building Sharepoint apps. No doubt, many, many people won't understand that obvious distinction and will read this as "VBA is dead." But that's only because they have less than half the brains God promised a ham sandwich. > With > the benefit of hindsight, I see that the parts where I guessed > incorrectly were based on my lack of understanding about how > Access handles code internally. I also see that some of my other > guesses weren't so bad. Nothing you said was correct. VBA is not being replaced. Macros are being improved to do more things and do them much better than they used to. I have no doubt that one day VBA *will* be replaced, but it will likely be done in the same way that Access Basic was replaced, in a manner that converts very easily and is very similar to the old way (something based on VB.NET is the obvious path, though that's a much bigger difference than between Access Basic and VBA). Your claim is like the person who says it's going to rain on Wednesday, and when it doesn't and then rains on Thursday says "See! I was right, I just got some of the details wrong!" -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: James A. Fortune on 13 Nov 2009 16:05 On Nov 13, 2:17 pm, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: > "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPos...(a)FortuneJames.com> wrote innews:34adb3fe-48c9-43ae-b07e-a80155c3cc58(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.co > m: > > > > > On Nov 12, 4:11 pm, "David W. Fenton" > > <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: > >> "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...(a)msn.com> wrote > >> innews:F5OKm.4853$dc2.3463(a)newsfe20.iad: > > >> > When you see the long list of functions that disappear when > >> > inside of a form's code, you simply can't believe how the heck > >> > you going to write an application. > > >> I assume you replace all of this stuff with macros, right? > > > In: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/65f3941 > > f7de8a50a > > > David Fenton said: > > >>CDMAPos...(a)FortuneJames.com wrote in > >>news:1140552410.467804.115390(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > >>> Stephen Lebans wrote: > >>>> James where in the world did you read that VBA is no longer > >>>> available with Access 12? Do you know how ludicrous your > >>>> statement is? > > >>> Whew. I'm glad it was ludicrous. I thought VBA was history. > > >>Do you realize what a dis-service you've done to this newsgroup by > >>posting the things you've posted here? You've created a set of > >>rumors that someone searching Google Groups may encounter, which > >>may end up as misinformation that propagates far beyond this > >>particular thread. > > >>If you didn't have any actual proof for any of your assertions, > >>then you shouldn't have made such ridiculous statements. > > >>I'm beginning to recall now why I had killfiled your previous > >>email address. I haven't yet decided if I'll be plonking this one, > >>too. > > > In: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/d1ad8db > > 081df7fdd > > > I quoted from Jeffrey Richter: > > > ...Visual Basic .NET (which now subsumes Visual Basic Scripting > > Edition, or VBScript, and Visual Basic for Applications, or > > VBA)... > > > so perhaps the idea is not as ludicrous now as it was back then. > > But VBA is not being replaced. You won't have to use macros except > if you're building Sharepoint apps. > > No doubt, many, many people won't understand that obvious > distinction and will read this as "VBA is dead." But that's only > because they have less than half the brains God promised a ham > sandwich. > > > With > > the benefit of hindsight, I see that the parts where I guessed > > incorrectly were based on my lack of understanding about how > > Access handles code internally. I also see that some of my other > > guesses weren't so bad. > > Nothing you said was correct. > > VBA is not being replaced. > > Macros are being improved to do more things and do them much better > than they used to. > > I have no doubt that one day VBA *will* be replaced, but it will > likely be done in the same way that Access Basic was replaced, in a > manner that converts very easily and is very similar to the old way > (something based on VB.NET is the obvious path, though that's a much > bigger difference than between Access Basic and VBA). > > Your claim is like the person who says it's going to rain on > Wednesday, and when it doesn't and then rains on Thursday says "See! > I was right, I just got some of the details wrong!" At least I saw the storm coming :-). I think the quote from Jeffrey Richter makes it clear that if Microsoft could have gotten away with eliminating VBA for Access 2007, they would have. Right then -- not at some point in the future. I think the existence of such a plan was likely and that it got temporarily abandoned. I have no doubt that Microsoft would love us to move to .NET. What I saw at the time was that the direction Microsoft was headed was at odds with the existence of VBA. Like a politician, they decided to spread out the implementation time to make it more gradual. VBA may not be dead, but its heyday is over. My guesses were not as far-fetched as you imagined. I think your faith in VBA wasn't much better than my guesses. James A. Fortune CDMAPoster(a)FortuneJames.com
From: Salad on 13 Nov 2009 20:04 Albert D. Kallal wrote: > "Salad" <oil(a)vinegar.com> wrote in message > > >>Thanks for answering my questions. I got myself an OfficeLive account. >>Seems most of the setup work is done, very straightforward. Now I need to >>wait for Access 2010. > > > Actually, why wait? Note that for the free SharePoint stuff, you need office > live small > business, office live does not have the access stuff. > > So, no need to wait, start reading up on SharePoint now... > > If you have access 2003, or better access 2007, then start playing with the > SharePoint stuff now. That is the whole suggesting here. Simply try upsizing > some small tables from access to that SharePoint site. See how it all works. > Try the "off line mode"...and try the on-line mode for 2007. So, gain some > experience to upsize access 2007 tables to SharePoint. The wizard and steps > are very much the same for publish in 2010 as they are for up-sizing tables > in 2007. So, then when you get your hands on a2010, then all that time spent > learning how to do this in a2007 will prepare you for a2010. > > Then, you be ready without having two learning curves occurring at the same > time. It will be less then 5 minutes affair of your time to start publishing > applications... > > Hi Albert. A2003. I logged into OfficeLive, got into my workspace Workbook1 to get the URL, then I opened a database with table Junk and attempted to export to it to my OfficeLive workspace. I got an error "The site you specified does not support importing data from a Microsoft Access database. The site must be running Windows Sharepoint from Microsoft." I suppose I am doing something wrong. Any hints or ideas? Also, in Access I might have a hyperlink to a document...something like "Press Me!#C:\Testdoc.doc". Can one store hyperlinks to Sharepoint docs like that? If so, how does one "extract" or know the url to save the doc to or where the docs are located? Is a Sharepoint link determined using the .Connect property?
From: Albert D. Kallal on 14 Nov 2009 16:49 "Salad" <oil(a)vinegar.com> wrote in message news:7smdnZDD9-> > Hi Albert. A2003. I logged into OfficeLive You need to use office live small business, office live does not have ms-access support. Here is a discussion and screen shots: http://www.utteraccess.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=97&Number=1903007&Zf=&Zw=&Zg=0&Zl=a&Main=1886252&Search=true&where=&Zu=120391&Zd=l&Zn=&Zt=bd&Zs=&Zy=#Post1903007&Zp= > Also, in Access I might have a hyperlink to a document...something like > "Press Me!#C:\Testdoc.doc". Can one store hyperlinks to Sharepoint docs > like that? I as a rule I avoided hyperlink fields. However, yes, for SharePoint docs, yes, you can store the docs on the server and use a web URL. Even better is that for access 2010, any attachments you store (internal to access) when up-sized to SharePoint actually results in a separate URL for each attachment. Thus clicking on that attachment is like clicking on a pdf, or word doc on a web site. > If so, how does one "extract" or know the url to save the doc to or where > the docs are located? Well, if you place the document on SharePoint, then you see the URL, or can right-click and copy the shortcut like you can for any document with a link to it on a web site...it not any different... -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal(a)msn.com
From: David W. Fenton on 14 Nov 2009 18:31
"James A. Fortune" <CDMAPoster(a)FortuneJames.com> wrote in news:5c365a99-a0e4-40fe-8d9c-67d2b3c2ffb0(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com : > On Nov 13, 2:17 pm, "David W. Fenton" > <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: >> "James A. Fortune" <CDMAPos...(a)FortuneJames.com> wrote >> innews:34adb3fe-48c9-43ae-b07e-a80155c3cc58(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegrou >> ps.co m: >> > In: >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-access/msg/d1ad8 >> >db >> > 081df7fdd >> >> > I quoted from Jeffrey Richter: >> >> > ...Visual Basic .NET (which now subsumes Visual Basic Scripting >> > Edition, or VBScript, and Visual Basic for Applications, or >> > VBA)... >> >> > so perhaps the idea is not as ludicrous now as it was back >> > then. >> >> But VBA is not being replaced. You won't have to use macros >> except if you're building Sharepoint apps. >> >> No doubt, many, many people won't understand that obvious >> distinction and will read this as "VBA is dead." But that's only >> because they have less than half the brains God promised a ham >> sandwich. >> >> > With >> > the benefit of hindsight, I see that the parts where I guessed >> > incorrectly were based on my lack of understanding about how >> > Access handles code internally. I also see that some of my >> > other guesses weren't so bad. >> >> Nothing you said was correct. >> >> VBA is not being replaced. >> >> Macros are being improved to do more things and do them much >> better than they used to. >> >> I have no doubt that one day VBA *will* be replaced, but it will >> likely be done in the same way that Access Basic was replaced, in >> a manner that converts very easily and is very similar to the old >> way (something based on VB.NET is the obvious path, though that's >> a much bigger difference than between Access Basic and VBA). >> >> Your claim is like the person who says it's going to rain on >> Wednesday, and when it doesn't and then rains on Thursday says >> "See! I was right, I just got some of the details wrong!" > > At least I saw the storm coming :-). > > I think the quote from Jeffrey Richter makes it clear that if > Microsoft could have gotten away with eliminating VBA for Access > 2007, they would have. The quote is from a book that was published in 2002. This predates MS's move to remove VBA from Excel for Mac. You *do* not what the upshot of *that* was, don't you? You're using an old quote from a period when things in regard to ..NET were much more theoretical than they are now, and that quote seems to me to be one of *wishing* something rather than stating a fact. > Right then -- not at some point in the future. I > think the existence of such a plan was likely and that it got > temporarily abandoned. I think you've really got the time frame out of whack. A book with a publication date of 2002 was published in 2001. Thus, its content predates not just A2007, but A2002 and A2003. Certainly 2002 and 2003 were surely largely in the can already or feature-complete in terms of planning, but the differences between 2003 and 2007 are not in regard to VBA integration, so there's absolutely no evidence of abandonment of VBA. Of course, you could see embedded macros as evidence of that, but I would say that those are there as part of the integration with Sharepoint, which seems much more important to Microsoft than killing VBA in Access. You might see the whole Sharepoint thing as a path to abandoning desktop Access, but I don't think that's likely to happen at all. It's conceivable for desktop Access to consist entirely of the web forms/reports and have only macros and embedded macros and no VBA, but I just don't see that as very likely, either, since by doing that, they would basically have re-invented Filemaker Pro, along with almost all the weaknesses of FM (insufficiently extensible scripting being the primary lack). Why would they do that? More likely is replacement of VBA with some for of VB.NET, seems to me, and that will likely be highly compatible (though not without major feature sacrifices along the way, no doubt). > I have no doubt that Microsoft would love us > to move to .NET. What I saw at the time was that the direction > Microsoft was headed was at odds with the existence of VBA. Like > a politician, they decided to spread out the implementation time > to make it more gradual. VBA may not be dead, but its heyday is > over. My guesses were not as far-fetched as you imagined. I > think your faith in VBA wasn't much better than my guesses. Hmm. You said VBA was on the way out, but it's still there, with more features than it had at the time of the quote you base this on. It's fully supported. You have to make the argument that something entirely unexpected, the web integration with Sharepoint, is the reason VBA is on the way out. Well, blind squirrels and stopped clocks and all that, but we don't even know that is the case. I strongly doubt that MS will eliminate a scripting language entirely in favor of macros. The question is what that language will be. I am not so deluded to think that it will always be VBA, but what I am certain of is that if MS follows its historical path, whatever scripting platform they replace VBA with will either be highly compatible, or it will have a transparent and reliable transition path. Thus, VBA won't be replaced with Javascript. It might be replaced with VBScript, but VBScript *is* VB, so that would be no problem whatsoever. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |