Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- From: "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:20:52 -0500
If you still want to keep Access as the frontend while having SQL-Server as
the backend and running complicated queries, then your only practical
solution might be to use ADP.
With MDB and Linked tables, the only ways of accelerating things are the use
of Views and the cumbersome use of SQL passthrough queries. However, you
will have fun to code forms based on pass-through queries under MDB. The
support of ADP for SP is bad and full of bugs, but never as bad as the one
offered by MDB.
MDB with linked tables (and Views) is a good solution because it's simple to
use for upsizing an already existing application, when there is no need to
run complicated procedures on the SQL-Server side.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Terry M" <terrym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:um%230$hQ$FHA.2620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I guess what we have been looking for is a way to use Access as a front end
>for SQL Server.
>
> We have an old Access multiuser app with an MDB backend that has a hundred
> or so tables, that is nearing the end of its life.
> Performance is a big issue for us. This app is for analyitical lab
> results and has reports based on some very complicated queries bases on a
> dozen or more tables. Plus many sub-tables with there own multiple table
> queries.
>
> I though that using ADP would allow me to use SQL views, SP's, etc to
> speed this up considerably by puting the query processing load onto our
> SQL Server, and carry on using Access like I aways had. Plus I need to
> draw some data from a second SQL Server database.
>
> If you think that linked SQL Server tables with a Access front end could
> work as well or better I would feel better. Does this mean I would use
> ODBC and write passthrough Queries?
>
> If you can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. With
> the exception of an A95 app I wrote years ago (that did some ODBC
> passthrough queries to an IBM AS400 database) I have been working with the
> standard split FE/BE mdb model.
>
> I liked the idea of being able to do everything from the ADP (create
> tables, view, SP) but that would not be the end of the world.
>
> At the end of the day I would like to create a frontend with the ease of
> Access and let SQL Server do the heavy lifting.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> "Pat Hartman(MVP)" <patsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23681X3P$FHA.1568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> The Access MDB with linked tables is a superior tool to access SQL
>> Server, Oracle, DB2, etc. backends. The ADP was extremely limited in its
>> s
>> functionality which is why it never gained wide acceptance. It could
>> only link to SQL Server tables. It couldn't even link to Access/Jet
>> tables!!! It also required significantly different techniques to develop
>> applications such that about the only things an MDB and an ADP have in
>> common is they are both Access and they both use VBA.
>>
>> My understanding at the moment is that future development of the ADP will
>> be limited or non-existent. In fact, with Office 12 which will be
>> released some time near the end of 2006, the ADP will not be enhanced to
>> allow it to create tables in SQL Server 2005. It will be able to access
>> tables from 2005 but not create them. So, if you need to use the ADP to
>> create databases and manage them, you have to stick with SQL Server 2000.
>>
>> Microsoft plans to continue support for existing ADP but will no longer
>> support creating them. I don't know what will happen with the upsizing
>> wizard. I hope it stays so it can be used to create the SQL Server
>> database. Otherwise, you would need to create the database from scratch
>> or use a tool such as erWin to translate the Access/Jet schema to SQL
>> Server, Oracle, DB2, etc.
>>
>> "Terry M" <terrym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:%23mFW4XO$FHA.2520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I just started reading this group and disapointed to read that it sounds
>>>like ADPs are being hung out to dry.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was not impressed by this. ADPs would allow someone with a bunch of
>>> Access programming background (like me) to leverage that knowledge to
>>> work with a SQL Server backend, without learning a new environment. If
>>> you program in Access you relize there is no faster way to built an
>>> application.
>>>
>>>
>>> If it is true that going forward less and less functionality, it could
>>> be hard to justify new development with ADP
>>>
>>> Those that have implemented (or plan to) these solutions may have an
>>> interesting support problem going forward.
>>>
>>> However everything I have read is not 'Official' does anyone know the
>>> status of this, or can you point me in the right direction.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry Mc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- From: Pat Hartman\(MVP\)
- Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- References:
- Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- From: Terry M
- Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- From: Pat Hartman\(MVP\)
- Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- From: Terry M
- Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- Prev by Date: Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- Next by Date: Re: Switching a Form's Recordsource at RunTime to a SP w/ a Parameter
- Previous by thread: Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- Next by thread: Re: Official Status of SQLServer 2005 ADP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
