G
Guest
I understand that one cannot do development in SQL Server 2005 through an
Access 2003 .adp (except maybe if SQL Server is in 2000 compatibility mode).
I've been doing it the SQL Server Management Studio. But I had assumed until
now that an adp rather than mdb front end for *users* is still the preferred
solution since this is still what adp's are specially designed for. Now I am
starting to think that MS sees adp's as archaic, and will not really be
supporting them going forward--that the Access 2003-SQL Server 2005
incompatibilities are more than a temporary hiccup. For example, I find that
Access 2003 treats SQL Server 2005 views as read-only even when they have
instead-of triggers and unique clustered indexes.
Is this right? Should I stick with an mdb with linked tables via ODBC?
Thanks for any wisdom you can offer.
Access 2003 .adp (except maybe if SQL Server is in 2000 compatibility mode).
I've been doing it the SQL Server Management Studio. But I had assumed until
now that an adp rather than mdb front end for *users* is still the preferred
solution since this is still what adp's are specially designed for. Now I am
starting to think that MS sees adp's as archaic, and will not really be
supporting them going forward--that the Access 2003-SQL Server 2005
incompatibilities are more than a temporary hiccup. For example, I find that
Access 2003 treats SQL Server 2005 views as read-only even when they have
instead-of triggers and unique clustered indexes.
Is this right? Should I stick with an mdb with linked tables via ODBC?
Thanks for any wisdom you can offer.