Using Sharepoint 2010 for data storage but still running full Access client with vba and normal forms
in [Help]
|
From: David W. Fenton on 12 Dec 2009 15:52 "Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in news:u68FWmdeKHA.5136(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > Excuse me David, but maybe there has been more of this discussion > somewhere else, I have only been following the thread on the > microsoft.public,sharepoint.general forum. That particular thread > topic happens to be "Using SharePoint 2010 for data storage...." > so forgive me if I thought this had something to do with actually > storing data. Maybe you should watch more carefully what threads you are posting in. There has been really extensive and lengthy discussion of all sorts of A2010/Sharepoint issues in comp.databases.ms-access, which is the newsgroup I am seeing this article [cross-]posted in. Maybe you should check the newsgroups header before posting a reply. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Daniel A. Galant on 13 Dec 2009 21:26 David, I have no idea what burr flew up your.... In most cases these forums are used for an exchange if information, ideas and learning. In looking over the posts that I have been replying to etc, none of my comments are out of bounds, out of line (except maybe some of my comments to you in response to your attitude... ) or not relevant. Again, it seems pretty clear to me that you are unaware of how SharePoint works. Publishing an Access database to SharePoint, with 2010, will still have to play by SharePoint rules, meaning that the Access application becomes a series of SharePoint lists and forms, which, regardless of what you want to believe, reside on the backend SQL server. SharePoint is not a front end for Access, at least not according to the product folks I have spoken to. The fact that this is being cross posted is also irrelevant to your comments. I have been commenting on the thread as it appears in the SharePoint forums, so perhaps you had better take some of your own advice. -- Daniel A. Galant Imagine what we could be... if we could just imagine. "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9CDFA17B523F4f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.82... > "Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in > news:u68FWmdeKHA.5136(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > >> Excuse me David, but maybe there has been more of this discussion >> somewhere else, I have only been following the thread on the >> microsoft.public,sharepoint.general forum. That particular thread >> topic happens to be "Using SharePoint 2010 for data storage...." >> so forgive me if I thought this had something to do with actually >> storing data. > > Maybe you should watch more carefully what threads you are posting > in. > > There has been really extensive and lengthy discussion of all sorts > of A2010/Sharepoint issues in comp.databases.ms-access, which is the > newsgroup I am seeing this article [cross-]posted in. Maybe you > should check the newsgroups header before posting a reply. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 14 Dec 2009 15:22 "Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in news:2284B36A-9F0C-4C3E-A30F-0A52DCD32A17(a)microsoft.com: > I have no idea what burr flew up your.... In most cases these > forums are used for an exchange if information, ideas and > learning. In looking over the posts that I have been replying to > etc, none of my comments are out of bounds, out of line (except > maybe some of my comments to you in response to your attitude... ) > or not relevant. Again, it seems pretty clear to me that you are > unaware of how SharePoint works. Publishing an Access database to > SharePoint, with 2010, will still have to play by SharePoint > rules, meaning that the Access application becomes a series of > SharePoint lists and forms, which, regardless of what you want to > believe, reside on the backend SQL server. SharePoint is not a > front end for Access, at least not according to the product folks > I have spoken to. You are calling Albert Kallal a liar, as he has said that publishing an Access app in the way described in this thread (i.e., no data, just the Access app, with no web forms and no Sharepoint hosting) does *not* convert the app or its data to Sharepoint lists, but instead stores the file in a BLOB field. If you know this to be false or misleading, please provide the documentation for your assertion that Albert is wrong. You will perhaps want to review the history of this thread in more detail than you seem to have already done, given how off-the-mark your replies have been in terms of the subject being discussed in this thread. > The fact that this is being cross posted is also irrelevant to > your comments. I have been commenting on the thread as it appears > in the SharePoint forums, so perhaps you had better take some of > your own advice. Had you read the history of the thread you were posting to, you would have realized that the comments you posted were completely off-base. I await your documentation for your assertions that contradict Albert, or your retraction and apology. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Daniel A. Galant on 14 Dec 2009 23:46 Ok, I'll try and make this as civil as I can. I have indeed gone through this entire thread, and only this thread as it is the only one I have been posting in or are concerned with. I have also watched, again, the relevant posted video that was pointed out by Albert, in his response to Bob, early on in this thread to see if I perhaps misunderstood its content. In going over the contents of all this, the only one who is out of line here David is you. At no time have I called Albert a liar, I would love for you to point out where in this thread I have done so. Also, you have stated: "If so, it's still completely irrelevant, since we weren't talking about data storage." I would like to bring to your attention this from the original post of this thread. "Again my interest is data on sharepoint 2010 and use normal windows/ Access clients on each user's PC. I am not trying to take about the new web forms and reports which run in a browser." Which was further expressed again: "There are a few subthreads of this overall thread. My original object was and is to pursue using Access 2010 as a rich client front end to data that is stored/hosted in Sharepoint." This was in response to my first posting in this thread. Again, I really would like to stress, this thread. So as far as I can see David, it is you who are out of line with your attacks on me and perhaps should apologize. Is it possible that during this discussion I have stated something that is incorrect? Perhaps, but then isn't that the purpose of these forums? To learn? Would you like me to point out the times, in this thread, you have stated something that is incorrect? Did I call you a liar? No, you are simply incorrect in your thinking. If you want to talk about a split Access database, using Access 2010 and SharePoint 2010, where the data still sits in Access but the front end application is now in SharePoint, fine. I suggest you go and review the video again. http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive/2009/12/02/the-access-show-managing-access-databases-with-sharepoint.aspx When you split the database like this, the application part becomes a SharePoint site, pointing to the data that still sits in your Access database. No problem, this can be done with a number of data sources now with SharePoint 2007. Let's not, however, confuse our terms here. There is a difference between an Access application front end and a SharePoint Front End server. I assume you are quite familiar with the first, since you are an Access person. The SharePoint Front End server is the web access point where users connect to a SharePoint farm. The WFE responds to users requests for information by building pages and sending that data to the clients browser. These pages are made up of many components, not a discussion for this thread, but the elements of which can be pulled from a number of locations. When you publish the Access front end application, those elements are turned into a SharePoint site with the corresponding required lists, forms, workflows etc. The source data, yes, still resides in your backend database, be it Access or SQL if you moved it there. None the less, these lists etc, that now make up your front end for the app, are SharePoint. SharePoint sites live in content databases, on SQL. The lists are tables in this content database, that has not changed, even in the new world of 2010. If this is not the case, I welcome Albert, or anyone, educating me on how this now works differently. I'm not offended by this, I enjoy learning. -- Daniel A. Galant Imagine what we could be... if we could just imagine.
From: David W. Fenton on 15 Dec 2009 17:06
"Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in news:A0DBE0D6-E399-47DE-9B88-C4B5A339B728(a)microsoft.com: > Ok, I'll try and make this as civil as I can. I have indeed gone > through this entire thread, It does not appear to me that you have done that at all. As outlined below, I've followed the direct lineage of your own post to which I'm replying here, and the References line demonstrates quite clearly that the topic was pretty clearly front-end distribution from the SECOND post in the References line of YOUR OWN POST. > and only this thread as it is the only > one I have been posting in or are concerned with. I have also > watched, again, the relevant posted video that was pointed out by > Albert, in his response to Bob, early on in this thread to see if > I perhaps misunderstood its content. You are, apparently, not actually examining the content of the discussion with a proper newsreader that threads posts based on the References line. If you had, you wouldn't be making the claims that you are making, as the content of the posts in the References header of your own post contradict what you're saying. > In going over the contents of > all this, the only one who is out of line here David is you. At no > time have I called Albert a liar, I didn't say you called him a liar. I said you have contradicted his assertions, and that you're either saying that he's mistaken (i.e., a liar) or you are yourself mistaken. > I would love for you to point > out where in this thread I have done so. Specifically: "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in news:Xns9CDCA92C1E2CFf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.98: [this is a quotation from your MessageID: <en4uXxQeKHA.5608(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>)] >> You can't use VBA when creating an Access database that you are >> going to push up to SharePoint. VBA, Action Queries and >> traditional Access macros are not supported by Access Services. > > Not for web publication, but for distribution, it's still > possible. Albert makes this distinction explicitly in his > discussions about web vs. client forms. > > You're basically calling Albert a liar. I don't know who the hell > you are are, but I know Albert, and I believe him and not you. That was a direct response to a claim of yours that I said contradicts what Albert has said. Is Albert correct or are you? If Albert is, then you owe him an apology. > Also, you have stated: > > "If so, it's still completely irrelevant, since we weren't talking > about data storage." > > I would like to bring to your attention this from the original > post of this thread. > > "Again my interest is data on sharepoint 2010 and use normal > windows/ Access clients on each user's PC. I am not trying to > take about the new web forms and reports which run in a browser." And if you look at Albert's first reply to that (MessageID: <qoHSm.49392$ky1.44754(a)newsfe14.iad>) you'll see that his first line is: > You even use SharePoint to pull down an application that is split. And he follows that with: > In other words, the data can reside on a backend accDB file > sitting on a server, and the front end pulled down from > SharePoint (but, this case, this means you suing a spit > system, and that is NOT appropriate for wireless or a wan). If you then follow the MessageIDs in the References to your own post, next comes a reply from Bob Alston (<1JHSm.38493$cX4.19748(a)newsfe10.iad>), and then a reply from Albert (<uAAQFBkdKHA.5136(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>), both of which are quite clearly discussing the scenario of using Sharepoint to distribute a front end that is linked to a local ACCDB back end. Then I replied to Albert (MessageID: <Xns9CD9A9BF68F92f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.99>): > Albert, can you look at my other post, replying to Bob, asking > about version control issues with synchronizing a published app? At this point, is there any doubt what we are talking about? These posts are directly in the lineage of the post to which I am now replying, i.e., the part of the thread where you interjected this (MessageID: <OtUQ35FeKHA.4880(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>): > Ok, I'll admit that I've been trying to follow a bit of this > discussion and I'm completely lost here as to what you are trying > to do. ....and then went off on an unrelated discussion, contradicting what Albert had been outlining: > A SharePoint Front End server is simply the access point that a > user connects to to then get at whatever data you are trying to > make available. The front ends don't sync to anything, they pull > data from a backend SQL server. This is wrong. Simply wrong, which is why I asked you to explain your contradiction of Albert. [] > This was in response to my first posting in this thread. Again, I > really would like to stress, this thread. So as far as I can see > David, it is you who are out of line with your attacks on me and > perhaps should apologize. Follow the MessageIDs and explain to me how I have incorrectly described the content of the particular messages to which you have replied, which are clearly in a lineage that was discussion front-end distribution via Sharepoint, something that you deny is possible. > Is it possible that during this > discussion I have stated something that is incorrect? Perhaps, but > then isn't that the purpose of these forums? To learn? Would you > like me to point out the times, in this thread, you have stated > something that is incorrect? Did I call you a liar? No, you are > simply incorrect in your thinking. Go back and READ THE THREAD. You apparently have not done so thus far, or have done so in a completely haphazard way that doesn't represent the actual order of the replies involved. > If you want to talk about a split Access database, using Access > 2010 and SharePoint 2010, where the data still sits in Access but > the front end application is now in SharePoint, fine. I suggest > you go and review the video again. Bob Alston and I have discussing that topic IN THIS VERY THREAD. And you pop in denying that it can be done. > http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive/2009/12/02/the-access-show-man > aging-access-databases-with-sharepoint.aspx > > When you split the database like this, the application part > becomes a SharePoint site, pointing to the data that still sits in > your Access database. You are going off on the tangent again, ignoring what Albert has been talking about. [tangential content omitted, as it just perpetuates your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic of the thread and your apparent failure to actually read Albert's posts in the thread that discuss what you claim is impossible] > If this is not the case, I welcome Albert, or anyone, educating me > on how this now works differently. I'm not offended by this, I > enjoy learning. Just read the thread. It's all there. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |