Can i develope Client Server Application with access
-
Hello all... I m trying to access my Access database from multiple user..Its giving me Error like "Database is Exclusively locked by other User."...well can i develope Client Server Application Using Access database...if yes how??????????????? thanks in advance :-D
-
Hello all... I m trying to access my Access database from multiple user..Its giving me Error like "Database is Exclusively locked by other User."...well can i develope Client Server Application Using Access database...if yes how??????????????? thanks in advance :-D
Welcome to the world of 'Access is crap'. If later versions allow multiple user access, certainly most of them do not. SQL Server is a real database, Access is not. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Welcome to the world of 'Access is crap'. If later versions allow multiple user access, certainly most of them do not. SQL Server is a real database, Access is not. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Christian Graus wrote: Welcome to the world of 'Access is crap'. If later versions allow multiple user access, certainly most of them do not. SQL Server is a real database, Access is not. This comment is what is a load of crap. "Certainly most of them do not?" The only certainty in this post is you certainly don't know what you are talking about. Access has supported multiple user access since at least version 2.0. (Maybe in 1.0, I never used it). Certainly Access is not appropriate for dozens of users and tables with millions of rows. But there is nothing wrong with using Access as long as the number of users is a handful and the data tables are relatively small. Access has no problems when working in terms of scale of 3-5 users and tens of thousands of rows. And for small applications not only is SQL Server overkill, it is a poor choice for other reasons. Case in point: Small operations can back up their Access data by a simple file copy. Any developer who really believes that a smaller operation without on staff IT support can actually reliably backup and if need be restore their SQL Server data should not be developing software. The original poster does not supply enough information to determine what the issue is. However, speaking in general terms multiple users can work with Access data concurrently using all the major releases of ADO including 2.1 through .NET. You just need to specify the type of locking you want. Optimistic, BatchOptimistic are the most commonly used. Robert
-
Christian Graus wrote: Welcome to the world of 'Access is crap'. If later versions allow multiple user access, certainly most of them do not. SQL Server is a real database, Access is not. This comment is what is a load of crap. "Certainly most of them do not?" The only certainty in this post is you certainly don't know what you are talking about. Access has supported multiple user access since at least version 2.0. (Maybe in 1.0, I never used it). Certainly Access is not appropriate for dozens of users and tables with millions of rows. But there is nothing wrong with using Access as long as the number of users is a handful and the data tables are relatively small. Access has no problems when working in terms of scale of 3-5 users and tens of thousands of rows. And for small applications not only is SQL Server overkill, it is a poor choice for other reasons. Case in point: Small operations can back up their Access data by a simple file copy. Any developer who really believes that a smaller operation without on staff IT support can actually reliably backup and if need be restore their SQL Server data should not be developing software. The original poster does not supply enough information to determine what the issue is. However, speaking in general terms multiple users can work with Access data concurrently using all the major releases of ADO including 2.1 through .NET. You just need to specify the type of locking you want. Optimistic, BatchOptimistic are the most commonly used. Robert
You may ibe right, it could be stored procedures that most versions of Access does not support. All I know for sure is that Access is crap. I felt sure that others had said before that multi users was an issue. rwestgraham wrote: Small operations can back up their Access data by a simple file copy. And so anyone with floppy can walk out with your data. I use SQL Server even when I'll be the only user. Any DB system that doesn't support stored procs is just a nightmare. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Hello all... I m trying to access my Access database from multiple user..Its giving me Error like "Database is Exclusively locked by other User."...well can i develope Client Server Application Using Access database...if yes how??????????????? thanks in advance :-D
-
Hello all... I m trying to access my Access database from multiple user..Its giving me Error like "Database is Exclusively locked by other User."...well can i develope Client Server Application Using Access database...if yes how??????????????? thanks in advance :-D
payal sheth wrote: Its giving me Error like "Database is Exclusively locked by other User." Someone has the DB open directly through access and that locks it to one person. I personally am running a .net program with 15 users with access to the DB with out a problem. The only trick i had to set up was to refresh the DB to the user once and a while. but no problems for me. James Kennelly
-
Christian Graus wrote: Welcome to the world of 'Access is crap'. If later versions allow multiple user access, certainly most of them do not. SQL Server is a real database, Access is not. This comment is what is a load of crap. "Certainly most of them do not?" The only certainty in this post is you certainly don't know what you are talking about. Access has supported multiple user access since at least version 2.0. (Maybe in 1.0, I never used it). Certainly Access is not appropriate for dozens of users and tables with millions of rows. But there is nothing wrong with using Access as long as the number of users is a handful and the data tables are relatively small. Access has no problems when working in terms of scale of 3-5 users and tens of thousands of rows. And for small applications not only is SQL Server overkill, it is a poor choice for other reasons. Case in point: Small operations can back up their Access data by a simple file copy. Any developer who really believes that a smaller operation without on staff IT support can actually reliably backup and if need be restore their SQL Server data should not be developing software. The original poster does not supply enough information to determine what the issue is. However, speaking in general terms multiple users can work with Access data concurrently using all the major releases of ADO including 2.1 through .NET. You just need to specify the type of locking you want. Optimistic, BatchOptimistic are the most commonly used. Robert
Actually, Christian is right. Access is crap for any multiuser system. Since its completely file based, it must be accessed using the underlying file system. This results in FAR more network traffic than using SQL Server, and is MUCH slower at doing the same job. Since it's file system bound, a user from any machine that can see the database can grab a copy of it just by dragging and dropping it. Security is a joke. You said all you have to do to backup it up is use a file copy? True, BUT!, in order to do so, everyone must disconnect from the database. Trust me, it happens every single day where I work. Sure, SQL Server is overkill, but there's always MSDE and SQL Server Express to handle the smaller jobs, and they're FAR easier to upgrade to a full SQL Server than Access ever will be. rwestgraham wrote: Case in point: Small operations can back up their Access data by a simple file copy. Any developer who really believes that a smaller operation without on staff IT support can actually reliably backup and if need be restore their SQL Server data should not be developing software. What case? I did it with a couple of small operations. If the backup operation is setup correctly, automated correctly, and stored in an appropriate site, it's not a problem. I could even fix any problem remotely, if needed. RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
-
Actually, Christian is right. Access is crap for any multiuser system. Since its completely file based, it must be accessed using the underlying file system. This results in FAR more network traffic than using SQL Server, and is MUCH slower at doing the same job. Since it's file system bound, a user from any machine that can see the database can grab a copy of it just by dragging and dropping it. Security is a joke. You said all you have to do to backup it up is use a file copy? True, BUT!, in order to do so, everyone must disconnect from the database. Trust me, it happens every single day where I work. Sure, SQL Server is overkill, but there's always MSDE and SQL Server Express to handle the smaller jobs, and they're FAR easier to upgrade to a full SQL Server than Access ever will be. rwestgraham wrote: Case in point: Small operations can back up their Access data by a simple file copy. Any developer who really believes that a smaller operation without on staff IT support can actually reliably backup and if need be restore their SQL Server data should not be developing software. What case? I did it with a couple of small operations. If the backup operation is setup correctly, automated correctly, and stored in an appropriate site, it's not a problem. I could even fix any problem remotely, if needed. RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Actually, Christian is right. Access is crap for any multiuser system. Since its completely file based, it must be accessed using the underlying file system. This results in FAR more network traffic than using SQL Server, and is MUCH slower at doing the same job. When used properly - i.e a small system, both speed and network traffic are rarely issues with Access. Security is not a major problem with Access if you set up work groups security. Even if a person copies the database they cannot access it outside of the workgroup. If you are so anti-Access, what are you doing using it where you work. Surely you can sway everyone's opinion against Access since it is after all, "such a piece of crap"? Dave Kreskowiak wrote: What case? I did it with a couple of small operations. If the backup operation is setup correctly, automated correctly, and stored in an appropriate site, it's not a problem. I could even fix any problem remotely, if needed. Backing up and restoring a single database is not particularly difficult. A full SQL Server restore? Different story. I would not want to have to try to walk a non-IT person through the process of a rebuilding an entire SQL Server. Good thing you can fix any problem remotely. Many businesses successfully rely on Access every day. I think some of you guys allow your personal prejudices about what's "good" and what's "crap" to allow you to make poor architectural decisions. For every person out there who says Access is a piece of shit and SQL Server is a "real database" there is another person who will tell you that SQL Server is piece of shit and Oracle is a "real database". And it's true that SQL Servers choke on tasks that Oracle burns through in no time. But so what? It's not about "faster" or "better". It's about picking tools and platforms that are appropriate for the end use. I never give a client something that is much more complicated than they need or is less suitable for their operation's ability to support just because I think it is "better". Robert
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Actually, Christian is right. Access is crap for any multiuser system. Since its completely file based, it must be accessed using the underlying file system. This results in FAR more network traffic than using SQL Server, and is MUCH slower at doing the same job. When used properly - i.e a small system, both speed and network traffic are rarely issues with Access. Security is not a major problem with Access if you set up work groups security. Even if a person copies the database they cannot access it outside of the workgroup. If you are so anti-Access, what are you doing using it where you work. Surely you can sway everyone's opinion against Access since it is after all, "such a piece of crap"? Dave Kreskowiak wrote: What case? I did it with a couple of small operations. If the backup operation is setup correctly, automated correctly, and stored in an appropriate site, it's not a problem. I could even fix any problem remotely, if needed. Backing up and restoring a single database is not particularly difficult. A full SQL Server restore? Different story. I would not want to have to try to walk a non-IT person through the process of a rebuilding an entire SQL Server. Good thing you can fix any problem remotely. Many businesses successfully rely on Access every day. I think some of you guys allow your personal prejudices about what's "good" and what's "crap" to allow you to make poor architectural decisions. For every person out there who says Access is a piece of shit and SQL Server is a "real database" there is another person who will tell you that SQL Server is piece of shit and Oracle is a "real database". And it's true that SQL Servers choke on tasks that Oracle burns through in no time. But so what? It's not about "faster" or "better". It's about picking tools and platforms that are appropriate for the end use. I never give a client something that is much more complicated than they need or is less suitable for their operation's ability to support just because I think it is "better". Robert
rwestgraham wrote: When used properly - i.e a small system, both speed and network traffic are rarely issues with Access. Security is not a major problem with Access if you set up work groups security. Even if a person copies the database they cannot access it outside of the workgroup. Not to mention workgroups in Access are a pain in the ass to use and administer. BTW: On my wire around here, the more I can reduce the chatter, the better. And yes, I've been in client sites where that was a concern. Now, it's a mandatory consideration in all the development I do. rwestgraham wrote: If you are so anti-Access, what are you doing using it where you work. I didn't say I was using it. I haven't used it in MY development work in years, and refuse to go back. I find the control and supportability of MSDE/SQL Server much easier to deal with, but more importantly, much less likely to screw up in the first place. rwestgraham wrote: Surely you can sway everyone's opinion against Access I didn't develop the system. I just have to keep it running somehow. And, no, I can't sway the opinion to get off Access. Believe me, with all the problems this thing has, I'd love to be able to rip it out and replace it with an SQL Server solution. rwestgraham wrote: Backing up and restoring a single database is not particularly difficult. A full SQL Server restore? Different story. Same goes for a machine hosting an Access database, so I fail to see your point here. Since a total machine failure would have me out there rebuilding it either way... rwestgraham wrote: I think some of you guys allow your personal prejudices about what's "good" and what's "crap" to allow you to make poor architectural decisions. Actually, it's not out "personal prejudices", but our "personal experiences" that dictate our architectural decision. Reliability, Supportability, and Scalability are the biggest factors I have to deal with in my work. rwestgraham wrote: It's about picking tools and platforms that are appropriate for the end use. Reliability, Supportability, and Scalability... RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
-
rwestgraham wrote: When used properly - i.e a small system, both speed and network traffic are rarely issues with Access. Security is not a major problem with Access if you set up work groups security. Even if a person copies the database they cannot access it outside of the workgroup. Not to mention workgroups in Access are a pain in the ass to use and administer. BTW: On my wire around here, the more I can reduce the chatter, the better. And yes, I've been in client sites where that was a concern. Now, it's a mandatory consideration in all the development I do. rwestgraham wrote: If you are so anti-Access, what are you doing using it where you work. I didn't say I was using it. I haven't used it in MY development work in years, and refuse to go back. I find the control and supportability of MSDE/SQL Server much easier to deal with, but more importantly, much less likely to screw up in the first place. rwestgraham wrote: Surely you can sway everyone's opinion against Access I didn't develop the system. I just have to keep it running somehow. And, no, I can't sway the opinion to get off Access. Believe me, with all the problems this thing has, I'd love to be able to rip it out and replace it with an SQL Server solution. rwestgraham wrote: Backing up and restoring a single database is not particularly difficult. A full SQL Server restore? Different story. Same goes for a machine hosting an Access database, so I fail to see your point here. Since a total machine failure would have me out there rebuilding it either way... rwestgraham wrote: I think some of you guys allow your personal prejudices about what's "good" and what's "crap" to allow you to make poor architectural decisions. Actually, it's not out "personal prejudices", but our "personal experiences" that dictate our architectural decision. Reliability, Supportability, and Scalability are the biggest factors I have to deal with in my work. rwestgraham wrote: It's about picking tools and platforms that are appropriate for the end use. Reliability, Supportability, and Scalability... RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Not to mention workgroups in Access are a pain in the ass to use and administer. BTW: On my wire around here, the more I can reduce the chatter, the better. And yes, I've been in client sites where that was a concern. Now, it's a mandatory consideration in all the development I do. Workgroups are pretty easy to administer. People can do them in house easily. Much less difficult than setting up a SQL Server. And if network traffic is an issue at a client site, then Access is probably not the correct choice anyway. You seem intent on ignoring the fact that I stress Access is only appropriate for small systems. Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Same goes for a machine hosting an Access database, so I fail to see your point here. Since a total machine failure would have me out there rebuilding it either way... Absolutely not true. The person simply reinstalls Windows, reinstalls the application, pulls out the optical disk or whatever they copy their backups to, and copies the last Access backup to the working directory. If they have security they recreate the workgroups. The system is fully restored. But I do agree about one thing. With MSDE or SQL Server yes, you are probably out there rebuilding it yourself. That's a luxury not everyone has. I am in Atlanta GA. Most of my clients are in Austin TX. If I had to fly out there to reinstall an application for a user group of 5 people because their hard drive crashed, somebody would be pissed, and rightfully so. Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Reliability, Supportability, and Scalability are the biggest factors I have to deal with in my work. Key word YOUR work. As far as reliability, I've had no real problems with Access. As far as supportability, as I've pointed out in length, my small application users can support themselves with Access. If I were to substitute MSDE this would no longer be the case. My large application users have the either the resources in house to support a SQL Server or can afford the resources to have me support it for them. Scalability is NOT a criteria in all systems. I recently did a pay-for-performance system for a client. It accesses their main database (A proprietary one that comes with their operations management system) and calculates some numbers and puts them into an Access database because that is a convenient way to spit out a report. The Operations manager can run it for the entire
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Not to mention workgroups in Access are a pain in the ass to use and administer. BTW: On my wire around here, the more I can reduce the chatter, the better. And yes, I've been in client sites where that was a concern. Now, it's a mandatory consideration in all the development I do. Workgroups are pretty easy to administer. People can do them in house easily. Much less difficult than setting up a SQL Server. And if network traffic is an issue at a client site, then Access is probably not the correct choice anyway. You seem intent on ignoring the fact that I stress Access is only appropriate for small systems. Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Same goes for a machine hosting an Access database, so I fail to see your point here. Since a total machine failure would have me out there rebuilding it either way... Absolutely not true. The person simply reinstalls Windows, reinstalls the application, pulls out the optical disk or whatever they copy their backups to, and copies the last Access backup to the working directory. If they have security they recreate the workgroups. The system is fully restored. But I do agree about one thing. With MSDE or SQL Server yes, you are probably out there rebuilding it yourself. That's a luxury not everyone has. I am in Atlanta GA. Most of my clients are in Austin TX. If I had to fly out there to reinstall an application for a user group of 5 people because their hard drive crashed, somebody would be pissed, and rightfully so. Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Reliability, Supportability, and Scalability are the biggest factors I have to deal with in my work. Key word YOUR work. As far as reliability, I've had no real problems with Access. As far as supportability, as I've pointed out in length, my small application users can support themselves with Access. If I were to substitute MSDE this would no longer be the case. My large application users have the either the resources in house to support a SQL Server or can afford the resources to have me support it for them. Scalability is NOT a criteria in all systems. I recently did a pay-for-performance system for a client. It accesses their main database (A proprietary one that comes with their operations management system) and calculates some numbers and puts them into an Access database because that is a convenient way to spit out a report. The Operations manager can run it for the entire
Great. Since our experiences are so different, we agree to disagree... For you, Access is an option. For me, I don't find it appropriate for any multi-user system. RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
-
Great. Since our experiences are so different, we agree to disagree... For you, Access is an option. For me, I don't find it appropriate for any multi-user system. RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: For you, Access is an option. For me, I don't find it appropriate for any multi-user system. But I knew that all along. :laugh: It's futile to argue with a fencepost about the hole that it's in. I engage in these discussions only for the benefit of people who are open to evaluation of arguments that are more technically compelling than "it is a piece of shit" . :) Robert