 | |
Synching databases (Access MDBs)
comp.databases.ms-access comp.databases.ms-access
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Synching databases (Access MDBs) -
05-07-2010
, 09:58 AM
|
Thanks very much. I understand now. I just did not understand Arvin's two folder thing. I will check out his article. |
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
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 6 May 2010 02:27:27 GMT, "David W. Fenton" XXXusenet (AT) dfenton (DOT) 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. |
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/
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
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.
Quote:
|
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. |
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
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9D7088D88BF36f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2 (AT) 74 (DOT) 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. |
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.
Quote:
|
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. |
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/
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
"PW" <emailaddyinsig (AT) ifIremember (DOT) com> wrote in message news:r136u5hmo53sr3ohehcil09n4n5l80qola (AT) 4ax (DOT) 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? |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
PW <emailaddyinsig (AT) ifIremember (DOT) com> wrote in news:1e36u5ls7li96daeimq0k29jnvqq32lphh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com: On 6 May 2010 02:27:27 GMT, "David W. Fenton" XXXusenet (AT) dfenton (DOT) 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! |
My wife just told me that one client IS using Terminal Services with
our application without any problems! Thanks.
-paulw
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
An odbc connection to a hosted MySql or SQL Server database might be something to consider. Cheap. Easy to set up. Don't have to change anything but the links in the frontend .mdb file. |
(recordsets, dlookups, etc...)? Of course, as long as the table and
field names are the same.
I just installed MySQL Server 5.1 but can't for the life of me figure
out how to access or build a database! I guess I need something else.
Quote:
|
Sharepoint would be a ridiculously complicated and expensive solution for 2 users. |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.