Re: ado vs.dao
- From: "Brendan Reynolds" <anonymous at discussions dot microsoft dot com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:41:30 +0100
'Classic' ADO is not being further developed either, and ADO.NET has little
more in common with 'classic' ADO than three letters in it's name. DAO and
'classic' ADO are *both* 'older' technologies now.
--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)
"Doug Bell" <dug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O3MLiftRFHA.3628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Just don't try to append an additional field of Type Decimal!
>
> DAO is an older technology and it seems that it is not being updated.
>
> You can use DAO on connections to other databases (other than MDBs) it
> works
> through the ODBC Drivers.
>
> Again ODBC is an older technology and may not get the updates to support
> new
> DB features.
>
> You should decide wether your application is going to evolve through new
> versions and new technologies or if it has a relatively fixed life.
>
>
> Doug
>
>
> "BobGott" <BobGott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:A4945FC4-1B5E-48B9-BEE3-44991D64C000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Well thanx rick/paul .. and for those who are following this thread ..
>> I'm
>> sticking with DAO!
>>
>> "Paul Overway" wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think there are any advantages at all in respect to
> performance...in
>> > fact it may be marginally worse. With ADO, you're adding an additional
> API
>> > layer for any database engine. The advantage in my mind is being able
> to
>> > use the same code (or nearly the same) to connect to various database
>> > engines...with the exception of Jet because SQL syntax is different and
> not
>> > strictly ANSI. So, if you're programming against a Jet database, ADO
> has no
>> > advantage because you'd have to re-write no matter what, if you moved
>> > to
>> > another database engine. Whereas, if your program is written using ADO
>> > against a SQL Server database, there is a good chance you wouldn't need
> to
>> > make any changes to go against an Oracle, DB2, whatever database.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Paul Overway
>> > Logico Solutions
>> > http://www.logico-solutions.com
>> >
>> >
>> > "Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:5SN9e.909$%L1.879@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > BobGott wrote:
>> > >> That's what I was hoping to hear .. but in my case I do have some
>> > >> linkage to MS SQL Server .. which was usually done via ODBC. My
>> > >> performance with DAO and SQL Server has been adequate. Does ADO
>> > >> really outshine DAO in this case? and in what way? (e.g.
>> > >> performance,
>> > >> reliability, all, both ..)
>> > >
>> > > I couldn't say, but I doubt that any advantages would be noticeable
>> > > to
> a
>> > > user. You are eliminating a "layer" if you use ADO directly against
> the
>> > > server for recordset stuff in code. On modern hardware you are
>> > > likely
>> > > talking about differences measured with lots of decimal places.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > I don't check the Email account attached
>> > > to this message. Send instead to...
>> > > RBrandt at Hunter dot com
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
.
- References:
- ado vs.dao
- From: BobGott
- Re: ado vs.dao
- From: Rick Brandt
- Re: ado vs.dao
- From: BobGott
- Re: ado vs.dao
- From: Rick Brandt
- Re: ado vs.dao
- From: Paul Overway
- Re: ado vs.dao
- From: BobGott
- Re: ado vs.dao
- From: Doug Bell
- ado vs.dao
- Prev by Date: Re: Need help w/ Network ID
- Next by Date: Re: Need help w/ Network ID
- Previous by thread: Re: ado vs.dao
- Next by thread: calling a function from a sub
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
