New Access Version?

[Brendan Reynolds]

A number of new features in ASP .NET 2.0, such as the Membership Service,
use the Jet data provider by default (though they are capable of using other
providers). See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/06/ASPNET20Overview/default.aspx

I hardly think Microsoft would be doing that if they expected Jet to go away
any time in the foreseeable future.

--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
http://brenreyn.blogspot.com

The spammers and script-kiddies have succeeded in making it impossible for
me to use a real e-mail address in public newsgroups. E-mail replies to
this post will be deleted without being read. Any e-mail claiming to be
from brenreyn at indigo dot ie that is not digitally signed by me with a
GlobalSign digital certificate is a forgery and should be deleted without
being read. Follow-up questions should in general be posted to the
newsgroup, but if you have a good reason to send me e-mail, you'll find
a useable e-mail address at the URL above.

 

[Steve Jorgensen]

So they're not really events, per se, but routines within a class module
that are called, right?

They're definitions of methods a containing object can implement that the
contained object can invoke without having an explicit reference to the
container or knowing what object that is.

 

[Steve Jorgensen]

Sorry - that's right. It happens if you edit the code in A2K3. I have not
seen that compiling in A2K2 before saving helps since I always do that.

 

[Tim Marshall]

I agree re. A97.

I would have loved to stay with A97, but especially since XP, we've had
horrific and in some cases, completely unsolveable, problems related to
broken references with A97 apps on XP platforms. I think largely
because Office 2003 sans Access is also installed.

A2003 seems not too bad, though the help sucks very badly and it has
behaved a bit flakey from time to time relative to A97. Senobject, for
example doesn't want to work with Netscape mail. I never used A2000 or
2002. ADO, not being native to Jet, caused me some vexing problems when
updating tables on a separate pop up form and the going back and trying
to requery a subform - the changes would either not sho or take 5 to 10
minutes to suddenly appear with all sorts of combinations and
permutations of the use of requery. And although I was looking forward
to DSNless connections to my Oracle via ADO, I gave up on this as the
very little bit of research I did made it seem very picky.

 

[Neil Ginsberg]

Thanks for the input.

I would have loved to stay with A97, but especially since XP, we've had
horrific and in some cases, completely unsolveable, problems related to
broken references with A97 apps on XP platforms. I think largely because
Office 2003 sans Access is also installed.

A2003 seems not too bad, though the help sucks very badly and it has
behaved a bit flakey from time to time relative to A97. Senobject, for
example doesn't want to work with Netscape mail. I never used A2000 or
2002. ADO, not being native to Jet, caused me some vexing problems when
updating tables on a separate pop up form and the going back and trying to
requery a subform - the changes would either not sho or take 5 to 10
minutes to suddenly appear with all sorts of combinations and permutations
of the use of requery. And although I was looking forward to DSNless
connections to my Oracle via ADO, I gave up on this as the very little bit
of research I did made it seem very picky.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

 

[Neil Ginsberg]

Right. My point being that they're called by the containing object, not
automatically triggered by an event, as the name might indicate.

 

[Darryl Kerkeslager]

updating tables on a separate pop up form and the going back and trying
to requery a subform - the changes would either not sho or take 5 to 10
minutes to suddenly appear with all sorts of combinations and
permutations of the use of requery. And although I was looking forward
to DSNless connections to my Oracle via ADO, I gave up on this as the
very little bit of research I did made it seem very picky.

I wish I could duplicate the problems you had, Tim. I know their are ways
and ways of doing things. DAO has such a large user base that the pitfalls
are well known. I had some issues when I first learned ADO, but have been
using it daily for the past year, and ADO has never caused me any problems
(OTOH, my own stupidity has caused me several ).


Darryl Kerkeslager

 

[Tony Toews]

The format would be ADP


I understood that SQL Server was used in Server 2003.


The default format will be an ADP.

Jet will (one day) disappear.

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Let's hope that MS have a momentary lapse of reason and give us Jet.Net
(Here's hoping).

On what do you base these statements? How is Jet a big headache?

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

 

[Tony Toews]

Just one warning, though. Open a database with VBA code in A2003, then open
it again in XP, and it's corrupted for sure. If you go to A2K3, be sure to do
all users at once!

Interesting

However I'm using A2003. The users will be getting an A2000 MDE.

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

 

[Tony Toews]

Just one warning, though. Open a database with VBA code in A2003, then open
it again in XP, and it's corrupted for sure. If you go to A2K3, be sure to do
all users at once!

Or is this the problem when you open an A2003 MDE in A2002? Although I doubt it as
you are a newsgroup regular and, I'm sure, are familiar with this.

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

 

[rkc]

Right. My point being that they're called by the containing object, not
automatically triggered by an event, as the name might indicate.

They are events published by an object that another object can
subscribe to. Exactly like a Form subscribing to a command button's
click event.

 

[David W. Fenton]

As far as I can tell, no file-based application can be made
totally secure.

I would agree, and say that no, I don't think there will be any
changes to Jet security.

The only thing that would be nice would be if they could figure out
a way to hook it into NTFS security so that Windows users and groups
would replace the Jet security users and groups.

But I suspect that would require a major rewrite of Jet overall, not
just of the security subsystem, which is surely hooked into just
about every aspect of Jet's internal operations (if it weren't, it
wouldn't be security!).

 

[David W. Fenton]

The format would be ADP

That would mean I'd stop developing in Access, as ADPs are a
complete mess and unusable by anyone who wants to be productive,
rather than constantly working around the inadequacies of this
half-baked format that was itself created for a stupid reason (to
get a Jet-less connection to SQL Server).

In any event, yes, you're just repeating what I said.

But think about what that would mean: it would mean the complete
abandonment of Access's entire legacy (an MDB can't be converted to
an ADP), and it would replace a full-featured, easy-to-use format
with one that is lacking in features and hard to understand and use.

It ain't gonna happen.

I understood that SQL Server was used in Server 2003.

That I didn't know. Do you have a citation for that? I was unable to
Google anything about it.

The default format will be an ADP.

That can't happen until ADPs are vastly improved in functionality,
reliability and usability.

Jet will (one day) disappear.

In my opinion, only when Access itself disappears.

Jet's a big headach to MS.

Yes, because it's simply way too good at the tasks it performs and
makes it impossible for MS to force people to spend billions on
licenses for SQL Server.

Let's hope that MS have a momentary lapse of reason and give us
Jet.Net (Here's hoping).

I don't think Jet will ever be enhanced.

I also don't think it will ever be dropped, except when Access
itself is no longer an actively developed product (or has morphed
into something wholly unrelated to its current incarnation).

 

[David W. Fenton]

Sorry - that's right. It happens if you edit the code in A2K3. I
have not seen that compiling in A2K2 before saving helps since I
always do that.

Well, there's compiling and then there's successful compiling. In my
experience, A2K and beyond are much more susceptible to failed 100%
compile without complaining about it.

And, of course, I always work with conditional compilation turned
off.

 

[Neil Ginsberg]

Yes, because it's simply way too good at the tasks it performs and
makes it impossible for MS to force people to spend billions on
licenses for SQL Server.

Good one!

Reminds me of when Fox Pro was vastly superior to any MS product and so MS
bought it so that they could effectively shelve it.

Neil

 

[Neil Ginsberg]

Well, there's compiling and then there's successful compiling. In my
experience, A2K and beyond are much more susceptible to failed 100%
compile without complaining about it.

And, of course, I always work with conditional compilation turned
off.

"Conditional compilation"? You mean "background compilation"?

Neil

 

[H]

I base these statements on the obvious trend to move as much as possible to
run from with in the .NET framework.

We know that SQL Server will shortly become object orientated, how long will
it be before VBA and Jet are moved in that direction.

I hope it does because of the obvious advantages that would bring.

Jet's a headach, because it's become so popular and will not be an easy
thing to move forwards.

These are my thoughts.

Regards

H

 

[H]

Sorry, Had not realised that an ADP file had so much problems


H

That would mean I'd stop developing in Access, as ADPs are a
complete mess and unusable by anyone who wants to be productive,
rather than constantly working around the inadequacies of this
half-baked format that was itself created for a stupid reason (to
get a Jet-less connection to SQL Server).

In any event, yes, you're just repeating what I said.

But think about what that would mean: it would mean the complete
abandonment of Access's entire legacy (an MDB can't be converted to
an ADP), and it would replace a full-featured, easy-to-use format
with one that is lacking in features and hard to understand and use.

It ain't gonna happen.


That I didn't know. Do you have a citation for that? I was unable to
Google anything about it.

It was in a book for Windows 2003 Server. I do not have the book with me at
present to reference.

 

[J. Clay]

Everyone seems to come down hard on ADPs. I converted our system to ADP/SQL
three years ago and my experience has been quite possitive. I think the
biggest issue is that you need to change your paradigm and think in a single
record mentality on forms. The system I originally developed in A97 and are
up to A2002 and it has continually grown in functionality and complexity.
It has will over 100 tables, 100 Stored procedures and probably that many
views.

The biggest change I made is that I DO NOT use the built in navigation. I
know at first thought this doesn't seem right, since that is one of the
benefits of working in Access. Instead, I use a stored procedure as the
record source for ALL of my main forms and use input parameters. This way,
only 1 record is returned by the server no matter what. This works very
well in house and has the benefit of 1) disabling the mouse wheel and 2)
give relatively good and usable performance over a WAN.

Anyway, I personally like the ADP format and hope that it is at least
maintained and enhanced.

Just my $.10 -- inflation you know
Jim

 

[Tony Toews]

I base these statements on the obvious trend to move as much as possible to
run from with in the .NET framework.

Not obvious to me. If an app works fine in Access why should it be moved to .Net.
It's still not as productive an environment as Access. Now if you had 5,000 users
on the Internet accessing the app then I can see why a .Net app would be better.

We know that SQL Server will shortly become object orientated, how long will
it be before VBA and Jet are moved in that direction.

I hope it does because of the obvious advantages that would bring.

What obvious advantages does object orientation bring? How do we know that SQL
Server will become OO?

Jet's a headach, because it's become so popular and will not be an easy
thing to move forwards.

<shrug> Then MS should make the migration to SQL Server easier.

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