Re: Conversion Problems

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Douglas J. Steele (NOSPAM_djsteele_at_NOSPAM_canada.com)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:21:26 -0400

Remove the reference to dao2535.tlb. That's a really old type library that
stopped working after Access 97 (it was there to ensure backwards
compatibility when you converted an Access 2.0 database to Access 97)

As long as you have a reference set to Microsoft DAO 3.6 Object Library, you
should be okay. 

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(No private e-mails, please)
"Katherine R" <KatherineR@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60AF2BF2-A110-449E-A307-00789DA2E7F8@microsoft.com...
> Thanks again Doug.  You have already been such a big help and I appreciate
> it.  Now that I have converted my database to a 2003 format I have
received a
> Conversion Error message.  The object type is: Database, and the error
> description is: Missing or broken VBE reference to the file 'dao253.tlb'.
>
> Prior to converting the database I ran a compile and debug as suggested in
> another posting.  (I must admit I have little idea of what a compile and
> debug is but, I followed the instructions in Access 97 and assume that a
> compile and debug occurred.)
>
> I've also read LeAnne's answer to my Conversion Error question in this
> posting.  She referred me to MS Knowledge Base Article - 287413.  In the
> Resolution portion of the article it states in part, "...For example, if
the
> message references the dao2535.tlb file, you can reference the Microsoft
DAO
> 3.6 Object Library...".  I've checked the list of available references for
my
> converted db and the Microsoft DAO 3.6 Object Library is already selected
as
> one of the available references.  Does this mean I shouldn't be concerned
> about the error message?
>
> "Douglas J. Steele" wrote:
>
> > It's often hard to discern Microsoft's motives <g>, but I'm assuming it
was
> > kept at Access 2000 level to maximize interoperability. If you're using
the
> > Access 2000 format, users with Access 2000, Access 2002 or Access 2003
can
> > use it without any issue. If you convert to a newer format, fewer users
can
> > use it.
> >
> > --
> > Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
> > http://I.Am/DougSteele
> > (No private e-mails, please)
> >
> >
> > "Katherine R" <KatherineR@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:5CAC157A-0100-417E-B507-AB400CDC4BEC@microsoft.com...
> > > Thank you Doug... I do have a much better understanding now.  What is
the
> > > reasoning behind the default format for Access 2003 being the Access
2000
> > > format?  Since my computer is running 2003, wouldn't it be better to
> > convert
> > > to the 2002-2003 format?
> > >
> > > "Douglas J. Steele" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The default format for Access 2003 (and Access 2002, for that
matter) is
> > the
> > > > Access 2000 format. If you want to use a newer format, you can
convert
> > the
> > > > database to the newer format under Tools | Database Utilties. You
can
> > also
> > > > change the default format in both versions.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
> > > > http://I.Am/DougSteele
> > > > (No private e-mails, please)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Katherine R" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:823201c484bf$cb1a87b0$a601280a@phx.gbl...
> > > > > Thank you LeAnne.  I'm trying to understand but, I'm just
> > > > > not getting this. I do understand that the newly converted
> > > > > file cannot be shared with A97 users but, if I'm running
> > > > > A2K3 now and I open a database created in A97 and convert,
> > > > > shouldn't it convert to A2K3... not A2K?  If it converts
> > > > > to A2K instead of to A2K3, won't I continue to suffer
> > > > > compatibility issues since "...any functionality specific
> > > > > to Access 2002 or later will not be available..." in the
> > > > > A2K file I just converted to?
> > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >Hi Kat,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Well, the newly converted file cannot be shared with A97
> > > > > users because
> > > > > >of the changes in object libraries between A97 and all
> > > > > later versions.
> > > > > >The programmers of 1997 (well, 95-96) couldn't "see into
> > > > > the future," so
> > > > > >to speak. To put it another way, newer versions can
> > > > > open/convert
> > > > > >databases created using older versions; but once a
> > > > > database has been
> > > > > >converted to the newer version, it cannot easily be read
> > > > > by the older
> > > > > >version.  A2K, A2K2, and A2K3 have most of the necessary
> > > > > object
> > > > > >libraries available to them (although sometimes you have
> > > > > to enable
> > > > > >them). The second message refers to the same situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >To fix missing references to particular object libraries,
> > > > > open any
> > > > > >module in Design View, then select Tools > References. If
> > > > > any libraries
> > > > > >are marked as MISSING, then uncheck them (i.e. clear the
> > > > > check boxes).
> > > > > >If this doesn't take care of the problem, or if no
> > > > > libraries are flagged
> > > > > >as "MISSING," then see my reply upthread to Liz's
> > > > > question "Reference to
> > > > > >Library not working" for some tips on how to troubleshoot
> > > > > missing/broken
> > > > > >references when converting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >hth,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >LeAnne
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Katherine R wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I have a two-part question to anyone kind enough to
> > > > > answer.  We just upgraded
> > > > > >> from Access 97 to 2003.  When converting my 97 FE and
> > > > > BE database to 2003 I
> > > > > >> get the following message:  "After you have converted
> > > > > this file to Access
> > > > > >> 2000 File Format, the new file cannot be shared with
> > > > > Access 97 users."  It
> > > > > >> goes on to say, "Any functionality specific to Access
> > > > > 2002 or later will not
> > > > > >> be available in Access 2000."  I don't understand...
> > > > > why am I getting this
> > > > > >> message when I'm converting to 2003, not to 2000?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Question #2...   When convertig my 97 BE to 2003, I
> > > > > receive the following
> > > > > >> error message:  "Missing or broken VBE reference to the
> > > > > file 'dao2535.tlb'."
> > > > > >> What is this and is it something a novice like myself
> > > > > should be able to fix?
> > > > > >> The database seems to be operating fine, so far,
> > > > > without doing anything to
> > > > > >> fix it.
> > > > > >.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anders Hejlsberg comment on immutable objects
    ... >>explicit interface implementation exists is so an interface name can ... I wouldn't cast to an ... >>Improper conversion sounds like a good description, ... > variable as a sort of implicit reference, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Convert from V2.0 to 2K
    ... Well, I'm not sure what's going on, but this conversion is turning into a ... There is nothing at all unusual about this app... ... remove the reference to it. ... > Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted)
  • Re: Instantiation of a class
    ... as well as the JLS. ... "A variable of a class type T can hold a null reference or a reference ... "Assignment conversion occurs when the value of an expression is ... a widening primitive conversion ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: What would you bid? Judgement not system
    ... >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: ... >> Thanks for the reference. ... >> But what, praytell, is the logic behind the conversion? ... this discussion though he no longer plays bridge on a regular basis. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Smart pointers of const objets
    ... The problem is that you cannot bind a temporary object to a non-const ... the matching type) to a non-const reference. ... It will bind to a const reference though: ... Your conversion technique is actually ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)