Albert D. Kallal wrote:
I have a suspicion that's more or less intended, for same reasons we
don't really see shrink-wrapped Access applications (not to say there
aren't, just not many and usually for specialty market). I'd wager that
large majority of Access applications out in wild are in-house
applications of some kind and have no public face at all. That may be
what they likewise thought for Access Services - for a company's
intranet or at least garden-walled internet so their traveling salesman
can go to a wireless spot and do their synchronization... still not
exactly public-facing even though it's internet-accessible.

One more point. Let's say a company want a public facing website...
maybe to assess their products out in wild - they would almost certainly
get a better deal both in terms of time and money if they used say,
monkeysurvey.com or similar sites which does wonders in simplifying
setting up a survey for people to take and once done, download the data
into various format. I've used that and it's quite slick and easy to do
that without any web programming. This easily clean the floors against
Access Services, including pure ASP.NET and the services can be either
free or for a small fee.

I don't know if there are other similar sites for different purposes but
when I think data-centric + public-facing + internet-accessible, it
almost inevitably will be some kind of survey. I guess the other
possibility is reporting but not certain about that.


So, I don't know what Microsoft was thinking WRT Access Services, but I
don't think they really had intended it to be public facing any more
than the traditional Access applications were so that may be more or
less a moot point in a sense of speaking.

Banana wrote:
Whoops - forgot one more point. Sharepoint itself also struck me as
something more oriented for a company's intranet than for public facing.
Not to say it doesn't do public facing sites but when you look over its
feature, it's easy to get a sense that Sharepoint is meant to help with
employees of the company far more than with the company's customer. So
that's another factor for why I think public-facing sites may not been
ultimately intended (though not technically restricted).

"Banana" <Banana (AT) Republic (DOT) com> wrote



That is a great observation. Since most access applications are not public
applications, then it stands to reason that access web applications would
not be any different. You are the 1st person to point this (now) obvious
issue.

However, I still going to setup some public facing sites using Access web
anyway...


--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal (AT) msn (DOT) com

Albert D. Kallal wrote:
Yeah, we are fortunate that this isn't technically restricted so it's
still an option for those who can manage it. It's just like those Access
applications being used as a kiosk application or shrink wrapped
application -- not the usual run of mill uses of Access but possible.

Also, I suppose if there were enough demand/interest, the hosting
providers may decide to provide some support for anonymous login. I
_think_ this can be enabled Sharepoint site by Sharepoint site so
someone could have a hosting account with say, two sites:
www.myhosting.com/myprivatestuff and www.myhosting.com/mypublicstuff.

I don't think it's possible to get a single page from
www.myhosting.com/myprivatestuff to be open to any anonymous login -
it's a per-site setting, not a per-page setting AFAICT. But I can be
dead wrong here. I'd definitely love to hear how it comes out for you so
we know what solutions we can offer to clients here.

"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in
news:iRRun.166714$2r7.96045 (AT) newsfe05 (DOT) iad:

I don't think that's obvious at all. The reason there aren't
shink-wrapped apps is because you can't compile them easily enough
so that they can install reliably. Access does not run any websites,
either, but with 2010 that changes. When the rules change, different
kind of apps can be created, and the only reason you don't see the
apps that are missing is because Access couldn't do them properly,
and that's now changing.

I can't see using it for any of my clients, but that's because those
who need websites already have them, and the necessary layer of
separation between their database apps and their public-facing
website is a feature, not a deficiency.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/