Re: ADP Vs. ODBC
- From: "Mary Chipman [MSFT]" <mchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:32:06 -0500
ODBC is recommended because you have more flexibility with the design
of the front-end application, giving you more control over the way
that Access connects to SQL Server and consumes server and network
resources. It doesn't necessarily hang on to a single connection the
way an ADP does. You don't have a design surface for creating SQL
Server objects, but the one supplied with ADPs is incomplete in that
it does not allow you to configure security, among other things. In
addition, it would have been impossible to add support for new
features in SQLS 2005, such as CLR integration. Microsoft recommends
that you use the Developer edition of SQL Server for creating and
securing SQL Server objects because it comes with a complete toolset.
As far as creating an Access front end, it's possible to use a
combinaton of local Jet tables to cache static data for combo boxes,
etc. and to use pass-through queries for reports. Correctly
architected using unbound forms, an Access FE can scale as well as a
..NET application. The optimizing paper gives more details about how to
implement an ODBC-front end successfully.
--Mary
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:40:20 -0500, Robert Morley
<rmorley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the links, Mary. I hadn't seen the Access Vision document before..
As far as not supporting ADP goes, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember
reading reports that you could no longer create ADPs through the Access 2007
interface, only open them. If that's true, that would definitely constitute
a decline of support. Perhaps that was a problem with an early Beta, though.
I'm also confused as to WHY ODBC is recommended. It seems to me that there
are at least as many drawbacks as there are benefits (the lack of ability to
view all SQL Server objects dynamically, the whole mess outlined under
"Adjusting Dynaset Behavior", etc.). I understand that it's faster, but
speed isn't everything (as evidenced by the popularity of the managed .NET
languages).
Rob
Mary Chipman [MSFT] wrote:
Microsoft recommends ODBC for *new* applications. Nowhere do we say
anything about recommending that you convert your existing ADP
applications, which will continue to be supported.
The following Access vision whitepaper can be found at:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access/HA102133061033.aspx
This paper has more detail about specific recommendations for using
Access with SQL Server:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb188204.aspx
--Mary
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:13:00 -0500, Robert Morley
<rmorley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<rant>
David W. Fenton wrote:
Microsoft is now recommending ODBC.And may the gods help you if you actually want to view and/or access ALL the
objects SQL Server exposes...we're back to the days of manually or
programatically re-linking everything. Oh yay! How does Microsoft NOT see
this as a step backwards?!?
And is de facto deprecating ADPs.And may the gods help you even further if you've actually got an ADP that
you don't want to convert back to the klunky ODBC way of doing things.
I know there are numerous benefits to linked MDBs such as local caching, and
a few bugs in ADPs...but yet again, this is a case of Microsoft changing
direction (after promoting the ADP/MSDE combo for years), and expecting that
you will happily spend the time and money required to change your business
model to match. UGH!
</rant>
Rob
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ADP Vs. ODBC
- From: Robert Morley
- Re: ADP Vs. ODBC
- Prev by Date: Re: Access 2007 adp and SQL Server Express
- Next by Date: adp report error when using dcount in control source of text box
- Previous by thread: Re: Access 2007 adp and SQL Server Express
- Next by thread: Re: ADP Vs. ODBC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
