 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / Multiuser / Networking / December 2004Magic way to maintain Access 2K ?
:eek: In spite of the "exlcusive access" requirements in Access 2000, it seems that Queries, etc can be [B]Exported[/B] from a development instance of a MDB to a shared instance. :eek: Does this solve the maintenance dilema created by Access 2000? Has anyone used this techniqe ? :confused: What is your question? What delima are you talking about wneh you say, "Does this solve the maintenance dilema created by Access 2000?" I have a multi-user application on a shared LAN and have no "delima". You'll have to give us more details. Rick B > :eek: In spite of the "exlcusive access" requirements in Access 2000, it > seems that Queries, etc can be [B]Exported[/B] from a development instance > of a MDB to a shared instance. :eek: Does this solve the maintenance > dilema created by Access 2000? Has anyone used this techniqe ? :confused: > I have a multi-user application on a shared LAN and have no "delima". Oh ? How do you apply changes/fixes ? I make the changes and save them. I then redistribute my new front-end to the users. Sounds like you have all your users sharing the same front-end databse. If that is the case, you can't make changes to your forms, queries, etc. You need to split your database and house the front-end on each user's PC, not on the LAN. Rick B > > I have a multi-user application on a shared LAN and have no "delima". > > Oh ? How do you apply changes/fixes ? >I make the changes and save them. I then redistribute my new front-end to >the users. Sounds like you have all your users sharing the same front-end [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You need to split your database and house the front-end on each user's PC, >not on the LAN. Agreed. Rick, I'm sure you're aware of the following but for the original posting. I specifically created the Auto FE Updater utility so that I could make changes to the FE MDE as often as I wanted and be quite confident that the next time someone went to run the app that it would pull in the latest version. For more info on the errors or the Auto FE Updater utility see the free Auto FE Updater utility at http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/autofe.htm at my website to keep the FE on each PC up to date. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm The FE updater is great! :-) >The FE updater is great! :-) Thanks for the kind words. Makes the effort worth while. What improvements would you like to see? Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm >What improvements would you like to see? Let me get back to you on that in a little while. I have two projects each with 15-25 users and I use the FE updater for distributing the front-ends and associated files. I'd be happy to provide some feedback when I have it all up and running. That's the least we can do with all the help you've provided. Yes...The point of my observation was that Access 2000 doesn't ALLOW you to make changes to a shared instance of a front end. But it DOES allow you to export changes to a shared instance. Aside from the obvious point that if you exported error riddled code, users would be running those errors, what is wrong with exporting tested, non-conflicting changes ? >>I make the changes and save them. I then redistribute my new front-end to >>the users. Sounds like you have all your users sharing the same front-end [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at > http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm I am not sure what the point of your question is... the standard approach is to simply replace the user's front ends with an updated one when you have made changes and tested those changes. It's not a big deal to do that, really it's not. In any case, your users shouldn't be sharing a front end... each user should have his/her own copy. Multiple users logged in to the same front end or monolithic database significantly increases the chances of corruption. Larry Linson Microsoft Access MVP > Yes...The point of my observation was that Access 2000 doesn't ALLOW you to > make changes to a shared instance of a front end. But it DOES allow you to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at > > http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm > Yes...The point of my observation was that Access 2000 doesn't ALLOW > make changes to a shared instance of a front end. But it DOES allow There is a slight misunderstanding here. Access 2000 DOES allow you to make changes to queries in a shared instance of a front end. Access 2000 DOES NOT allow you to export modules & forms to shared instance of a front end. modules, forms and reports are treated differently from macros, tables, and queries. Exporting is treated the same way as sharing. Sometimes Access gets confused, and the Access IDE locks further changes, so to make testing easier you should try to just test one action at a time. (david) > Yes...The point of my observation was that Access 2000 doesn't ALLOW you to > make changes to a shared instance of a front end. But it DOES allow you to > export changes to a shared instance. Aside from the obvious point that if > you exported error riddled code, users would be running those errors, what > is wrong with exporting tested, non-conflicting changes ? You're right. My bad. I didn't realize that the type of object made a difference. Man, this is one strange ugamuga of a multi-user piece of software. I heard some "expert" opinion that mdb corruption problems were caused by the fact that Acceess 2000 instances wrote "temp files" to the directory containing the .mdb without any distinction as to user or transaction. ie. some simple single user coding practices slipped into (presumably) multi-user software. Thus the need to have every user keep a seperate instance of the front end. Wow. Is this STUPID or what ? >> Yes...The point of my observation was that Access 2000 doesn't ALLOW >> make changes to a shared instance of a front end. But it DOES allow [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> what >> is wrong with exporting tested, non-conflicting changes ? >Man, this is one strange ugamuga of a multi-user piece of software. Well, I guess we're so used to working with this concept that we consider it quite normal. <smile> >I heard some "expert" opinion that mdb corruption problems were caused by >the fact [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >have every user >keep a seperate instance of the front end. Wow. Is this STUPID or what ? Temp files aren't the problem. But I see you've received your answer in a different thread. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm > I heard some "expert" opinion that mdb corruption problems were > caused by the fact > that Acceess 2000 instances wrote "temp files" to the directory > containing the .mdb > without any distinction as to user or transaction. ie. some > simple single user coding That's not true. Be a bit wary about this 'expert'. (david) > You're right. My bad. I didn't realize that the type of object made a > difference. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have every user > keep a seperate instance of the front end. Wow. Is this STUPID or what ? Queries are stored, more or less, in something like a table, and, like any data stored in a table, can be shared and updated by multiple users. This is not magic: as an engineer, the very first coding practice I ever heard a story about, long before I every heard of "computer science", was that modifying code while it was in use was a well known path to untraceable errors. (david) > :eek: In spite of the "exlcusive access" requirements in Access 2000, it > seems that Queries, etc can be [B]Exported[/B] from a development instance > of a MDB to a shared instance. :eek: Does this solve the maintenance > dilema created by Access 2000? Has anyone used this techniqe ? :confused: |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.