Synching databases (Access MDBs)
in [Help]
|
Prev: Need End User Trainers (3 positions) , North carolina, NC
Next: Senior Cognos Consultant Detroit, MI
From: Arvin Meyer on 7 May 2010 10:58 "PW" <emailaddyinsig(a)ifIremember.com> wrote in message news:r136u5hmo53sr3ohehcil09n4n5l80qola(a)4ax.com... > Thanks very much. I understand now. I just did not understand > Arvin's two folder thing. I will check out his article. If you are using RDP (a remote client) each person must log into their own copy of the front-end. SHARING A FRONT-END IS A RECIPE FOR CORRUPTION, on any server, even on a terminal server. To avoid that on a terminal server you place the copy of the front-end into a folder that ONLY that person will access. So, there's a front-end.mdb in the PW folder, and a front-end.mdb in the Arvin folder. Arvin logs on ONLY uses the copy of in his folder. If you go into my folder, I breaka you hands, capish? -- Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP http://www.datastrat.com http://www.accessmvp.com http://www.mvps.org/access
From: David W. Fenton on 7 May 2010 13:56 PW <emailaddyinsig(a)ifIremember.com> wrote in news:1e36u5ls7li96daeimq0k29jnvqq32lphh(a)4ax.com: > On 6 May 2010 02:27:27 GMT, "David W. Fenton" ><XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: >>I would agree that some version of Terminal Services is probably >>the easiest to implement, but I'm not sure it's the right solution >>for really small groups of users (like two). > > But it might be for our larger clients. Good to know in case they > ask. Had you described a different situation, I would have given a different answer. Pardon me for providing an answer for the question you asked! -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Arvin Meyer on 8 May 2010 09:43 "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9D7088D88BF36f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.93... > One of the fabulous things about Access Services with Sharepoint > 2010 and an Access web app run in the browser is that you give up > nothing at all -- the result is identical to the same app running > within Access. I think that you are being overly optimistic. It's not the same at all. It is somewhat similar, with a lot more work to build, and more work to implement. It's also orders of magnitude slower to sync more than a few records for multiple users with any sized update or insert operation. > This is huge and ultimately seems to me that it will be very > popular, even among those who'd never have considered Access in the > past. But I could be overoptimistic in that. For Access sized operations (1 to 50 users) I think Terminal Services is the best solution. Beyond that, it seems to me that an asp/asp.net solution with a SQL-Server database is more appropriate, since it's likely to need further scaling anyway. -- Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP http://www.datastrat.com http://www.accessmvp.com http://www.mvps.org/access
From: David W. Fenton on 8 May 2010 17:49 "Arvin Meyer" <arvinm(a)invalid.org> wrote in news:b7qdnZna47Xi93jWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > > "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:Xns9D7088D88BF36f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.93... > >> One of the fabulous things about Access Services with Sharepoint >> 2010 and an Access web app run in the browser is that you give up >> nothing at all -- the result is identical to the same app running >> within Access. > > I think that you are being overly optimistic. It's not the same at > all. It is somewhat similar, with a lot more work to build, and > more work to implement. It's also orders of magnitude slower to > sync more than a few records for multiple users with any sized > update or insert operation. I was speaking only of UI. Performance would, of course, be different based on the speed of your connection. It's the web versus a LAN connection, so I think it's rather odd for you to think it needs to be noted. >> This is huge and ultimately seems to me that it will be very >> popular, even among those who'd never have considered Access in >> the past. But I could be overoptimistic in that. > > For Access sized operations (1 to 50 users) I think Terminal > Services is the best solution. Beyond that, it seems to me that an > asp/asp.net solution with a SQL-Server database is more > appropriate, since it's likely to need further scaling anyway. Terminal Services and converting to a browser-based application does not in any way address the issue of disconnected users, whereas Sharepoint does. To me, that's more important than anything else, because I've been dealing with that issue for 13 years, providing replicated solutions to clients. Sharepoint makes Jet replication obsolete for all purposes (WTS made it obsolete for anything but disconnected users). The ease of use and lack of setup required to use an Access app with Sharepoint is a big win, while still providing the disconnected user the ability to work and synch. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: PW on 12 May 2010 14:32
On Fri, 7 May 2010 10:58:21 -0400, "Arvin Meyer" <arvinm(a)invalid.org> wrote: > >"PW" <emailaddyinsig(a)ifIremember.com> wrote in message >news:r136u5hmo53sr3ohehcil09n4n5l80qola(a)4ax.com... > >> Thanks very much. I understand now. I just did not understand >> Arvin's two folder thing. I will check out his article. > >If you are using RDP (a remote client) each person must log into their own >copy of the front-end. SHARING A FRONT-END IS A RECIPE FOR CORRUPTION, on >any server, even on a terminal server. To avoid that on a terminal server >you place the copy of the front-end into a folder that ONLY that person will >access. So, there's a front-end.mdb in the PW folder, and a front-end.mdb in >the Arvin folder. Arvin logs on ONLY uses the copy of in his folder. If you >go into my folder, I breaka you hands, capish? I capish now!!! Grazie! |