unbound forms
in [Form]
|
From: icccapital on 4 May 2010 14:51 I have a form that has a recordsource based on a query I typed in and I have all the controls on the form unbound. I believe with a bound control it keeps a link to the database so there is a lot of communication between form and database right? With an unbound form does the recordsource "download" a recordset that the form then walks through? So if I add a next button to the form, when next is clicked does the form requery the database or does it get the data from the recordset? I am working in access 2007 and right now the database is split with the backend still in access, but I hope to move it to sql server so that is part of the reason I am trying to unbind some of the information, to improve performance after the move. Thanks for the thoughts.
From: golfinray on 4 May 2010 20:04 Unbound forms are not less complex, but MORE. Having to set recordsources on the fly is something you should avoid. Bind the forms to a table or query then when you upgrade the sql it will be easy to set the links. Google unc paths to find out how. -- Milton Purdy ACCESS State of Arkansas "icccapital" wrote: > I have a form that has a recordsource based on a query I typed in and I have > all the controls on the form unbound. I believe with a bound control it > keeps a link to the database so there is a lot of communication between form > and database right? With an unbound form does the recordsource "download" a > recordset that the form then walks through? So if I add a next button to the > form, when next is clicked does the form requery the database or does it get > the data from the recordset? > > I am working in access 2007 and right now the database is split with the > backend still in access, but I hope to move it to sql server so that is part > of the reason I am trying to unbind some of the information, to improve > performance after the move. > > Thanks for the thoughts.
From: Linq Adams via AccessMonster.com on 5 May 2010 08:33 If the "next" button you're talking about adding is from the Command Button Wizard it's not going to do anything on an unbound form! A big part of the reason to use Access for database development is the speed with which it can be created, using bound forms. Several developers I know, experienced in Visual Basic database development and Access development, estimate that development using unbound forms by ***experienced*** developers takes twice as long as it does when using Access and bound forms. The belief that unbound forms are necessary in order to do data validation (the reason usually given) is simply not true! If you insist on using unbound forms, you'd be far better off using a straight VB or C++ front end with a SQL Server or Oracle back end. You can create an EXE file which gives total protection to your code/design You can distribute the db to PCs without a copy of Access being on board Your data security if far, far better than anything you can do in Access -- There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat! Answers/posts based on Access 2000/2003 Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com
From: BruceM via AccessMonster.com on 5 May 2010 10:08 I have to disagree with the general statement that setting a record source on the fly is something to be avoided. It is often more efficient to load just the records that are needed rather than loading the entire recordset and filtering it, but the OP is not talking about that, so in the context of the question I am inclined to agree. One curiosity is that the OP seems to be describing a form that is bound to a record source, but the controls are unbound. This may be the worst of both worlds. To view or edit the data it will be necessary to use a bound form, or maybe to write the data for a single record to unbound controls, which I agree would be something to avoid. golfinray wrote: >Unbound forms are not less complex, but MORE. Having to set recordsources on >the fly is something you should avoid. Bind the forms to a table or query >then when you upgrade the sql it will be easy to set the links. Google unc >paths to find out how. >> I have a form that has a recordsource based on a query I typed in and I have >> all the controls on the form unbound. I believe with a bound control it >[quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Thanks for the thoughts. -- Message posted via AccessMonster.com http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-forms/201005/1
From: David W. Fenton on 5 May 2010 22:43 =?Utf-8?B?Z29sZmlucmF5?= <golfinray(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:5BE92503-2383-47D6-8705-D5DCEE4A8176(a)microsoft.com: > Unbound forms are not less complex, but MORE. Very true -- you have to put in a whole bunch of code to replicate features and events that you get without code in a bound form. > Having to set recordsources on > the fly is something you should avoid. Why? I see absolutely no reason to avoid it. Indeed, I'd say it's the first choice for any form. > Bind the forms to a table or query Terrible idea -- it may work with small tables, but quickly becomes inefficient. It's also very bad if you try to upsize it. > then when you upgrade the sql it will be easy to set the links. > Google unc paths to find out how. UNC has zilch to do with the subject of bound/unbound. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: selecting a default field when opening form Next: Allowing Temporary Sorting |