HELP PLEASE - need app to modify multiple MDB table designs simultaneously

[Scotter]

Okay I think my title line was worded misleadingly. So here goes again.

I've got quite 20 identical MDB files running on an IIS5 server.
From time to time I need to go into various tables and add a field or two.
It would be great if there were an application out there that could either:
(a) sync all MDB designs (and/or data) designated to match one I've added
some fields/tables to
OR
(b) go into all designated MDBs and create new field(s) or table(s).

I've began writing something like this that right now just does part of (b)
but I'd rather find something that is much more slick and complete.

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Is there a reason why you have to have 20 identical MDBs? Can you not
combine everything into one?

 

[Ken Halter]

Is there a reason why you have to have 20 identical MDBs? Can you not
combine everything into one?

....and, if they're truly identical, seems like.... modify one and use
FileCopy to over-write the others.

 

[Steven Burn]

http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2081

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[Scotter]

They do not have identical data in them.
Only their *structure* is identical.
So... when I come up with an upgrade, I would rather not open up 20
different databases one at a time to change/add field(s)/table(s).

 

[Steven Burn]

But _WHY_ do you need 20 database's?

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[Scotter]

Trust me your question is irrelevant to what I need help finding.
If you are really curious, though, see my answer at
microsoft.public.access.3rdpartyusrgrp.
I'm not sure of exact protocol for the cross-posting I'm doing and I don't
want to piss people off.
Thanks!

 

[Ray Costanzo [MVP]]

His question is not irrelevant at all. I'm going to guess that you have
some setup where each user has his own database. If it's something like
that, you aren't making good use of databases in general. Instead of
finding a solution to doing something the wrong way in a faster way, people
here are trying to offer suggestions of doing things the right way which
would then negate the need for jumping through hoops!

Ray at work

 

[Steven Burn]

Trust me your question is irrelevant to what I need help finding.

It's not irrelevant at all...... there's absolutely no need to have 20
database's.... (20 _tables_ in ONE database maybe (and even then, this
shouldn't be necessary), but definately not 20 database's)

If you are really curious, though, see my answer at
microsoft.public.access.3rdpartyusrgrp.

I don't visit that NG ;o)

I'm not sure of exact protocol for the cross-posting I'm doing and I don't
want to piss people off.

See the link Ray posted......

http://aspfaq.com/5004

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[Scotter]

I really wish you all would stop second guessing how/why I built the
application as I did and just tell me of software that does what I need if
you know if it existing. If you can't contribute then please don't badger me
with advice about an application you have no idea about.

PLEASE trust I had good reason to build the app the way I did and that for
this particular application, ONE database runs ONE application and EACH
application runs only ONE web site and it work great this way. For this
particular app, it would not be efficient to have ONE application run ALL
web sites on my server (and all the other servers running this app).

In case you didn't read my explanation earlier, here it is:

I have written a web content managment system that uses an MDB as it's
back-end.
I happen to be running twenty (and more each day) very similar versions of
this *application* on my 2003 Server.
Each *application* (with it's MDB) has very different data but same table
structure.
So each *application* has an identical structure but different data; for the
most part. Some few have departed from the exact same schema.

 

[Steven Burn]

I really wish you all would stop second guessing how/why I built the
application as I did and just tell me of software that does what I need if
you know if it existing. If you can't contribute then please don't badger me
with advice about an application you have no idea about.

</snip>

Now this type of attitude isn't gonna get you anywhere....

As far as badgering you about an application we have no idea about....
perhaps if you explained it to us, we'd have an idea.

I don't mean to offend but, the guys that volunteer here, know what they are
talking about, and "badger you with advice", in an effort to get you to do
things the _right_ way, which will in turn, make _YOUR_ job a heck of alot
easier.

If however, you don't want advice, then you should really make sure you put
something along the lines of ....

"I don't give a rats right bollock about what you think of the way I am
doing things, so would appreciate your not trying to tell me how I should be
doing this, and just answer my question instead"

..... in your first post.

PLEASE trust I had good reason to build the app the way I did and that for
this particular application, ONE database runs ONE application and EACH
application runs only ONE web site and it work great this way.

But thats the point!. If you are going to be using database's, you really
_should_ learn to use them effectively, and correctly, rather than what may
_look_ easier.

For this particular app, it would not be efficient to have ONE application run ALL
web sites on my server (and all the other servers running this app).

Then you should really re-think the way you designed it.

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[Scotter]

I see you saying absolutely no need for 20 databases and I'm wondeirng if
maybe you confused my description of my situation to be that I'm running 20
databases PER application?
If that were the case then yeah maybe but please re-read to find that I am
running ONE database PER ONE application.

 

[Steven Burn]

I read it just fine..... and still don't see why you would need a seperate
database for each application when you could just as easily have one
database, and one table for each application?

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[dlbjr]

Just let it go!
Some work harder than smarter.

dlbjr
Pleading sagacious indoctrination!

 

[Scotter]

hehehee now you are just baiting me, right?
"one table for each application"?
You have no idea what my application does and why it requires about 40
different tables because this is a RELATIONAL database. Maybe you are living
in 1978 where all databases were flat?
Will someone, anyone here who understands that ONE SOLUTION DOES NOT FIT ALL
please step forward and correct these guys and hopefully they will get off
my back.

 

[Steven Burn]

40 tables per DB?...... if you'd said that when I first asked, I'd have shut
up about the amount of DB's <g>

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

Okay I think my title line was worded misleadingly. So here goes
again.
I've got quite 20 identical MDB files running on an IIS5 server.
From time to time I need to go into various tables and add a field or
two. It would be great if there were an application out there that
could either: (a) sync all MDB designs (and/or data) designated to
match one I've added some fields/tables to

There is. It's called "replication" and it's built into Access.
..

 

[dlbjr]

If the databases are identical for all applications then all applications are capable of running
from one main database.
The key is which data belongs to which application in the database. This can be easily managed. Then
you would be changing just one database. I'm a DBA for Oracle and Microsoft SQLServer systems in a
large environment. So, you can either take advice from people truly trying to help you. Or struggle.
Why do you think not many have struggled to build such a tool you are requesting?


'dlbjr
'Pleading sagacious indoctrination!

 

[Scotter]

Yes, I understand why you and the others are recommending I make this
application so it runs multiple web sites instead of just one per MDB.
Tell me something: If you wrote an application to run with an MDB back-end
and you planned on keeping it MS-Access based and this application is a web
CMS, and some of your web clients are big banking institutions and they do
not want their data comingled with other company's data... and some clients
want to have access to their particular MDB... and... and .... and....
would you then put all your eggs in one basket?
Another reason is that these *identical* MDBs sometimes do not stay
identical. I inevitably have clients who want their version of HotKey
customized to run different in some ways and oh boy then it departs from
being like all the others and yeah that presents headaches of it's own but
hey they pay more for support.
Yeah, I realize I could still design each app so it uses one MDB and has
*potential* to host more than one URL. But please please please trust that I
have plenty of other reasons, too, to keep them separate in the case of this
particular application.
If you truly are a pro then you know that there are typically exceptions to
rules.

 

[Ray Costanzo [MVP]]

Send me links to your product. I'm on all the software committees at the
bank where I work. (e-mail address removed)

Ray at work