Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

ADP strengths?

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by bkrasnof@gmail.com, Jul 28, 2006.

Tags:
  1. bkrasnof@gmail.com

    bkrasnof@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    quickly.

    I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    was doing it wrong.

    I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.

    Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?

    thanks,
    Bruce
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Ashdoc's Short Movie Review---deadpool Theatre, Movies & Cinema Feb 23, 2016

  3. Arvin Meyer [MVP]

    Arvin Meyer [MVP]
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Unfortunately, Microsoft hasn't put the resources into developing ADPs to
    their full potential. Yes, they should be good for the next 5 years, and
    maybe a bit afterwards, but Microsoft will not be doing any further
    development with them in their push to force everything into .NET
    programming. That said, using Access as a RAD tool, or even as a full
    feature application development tool is a wise choice. The is no other
    system which offers as manny data-centric properties and functions as
    Access. With Access, you can use either linked or disconnected tables just
    fine. The relationships are respected either way. If using the SQL-Server
    engine, you can't make a better choice than an Access ADP for LAN use.
    --
    Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
    Microsoft Access
    Free Access downloads
    http://www.datastrat.com
    http://www.mvps.org/access

    <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    > quickly.
    >
    > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    > was doing it wrong.
    >
    > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    >
    > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    >
    > thanks,
    > Bruce
    >
     
  4. bkrasnof@gmail.com

    bkrasnof@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Arvin,

    Thanks for your info, how would you describe the differences between
    the ADP approach vs. the linked tables approach.

    I've been very happy with ADP, I create everything in SQL 2005 so I
    don't care if Access 2003 can't do that, but the forms, queries,
    reports, etc. features are terrific.

    But I've seen some people say to use linked tables instead, just not
    sure the main pros/cons.

    thanks!
    -Bruce

    Arvin Meyer [MVP] wrote:
    > Unfortunately, Microsoft hasn't put the resources into developing ADPs to
    > their full potential. Yes, they should be good for the next 5 years, and
    > maybe a bit afterwards, but Microsoft will not be doing any further
    > development with them in their push to force everything into .NET
    > programming. That said, using Access as a RAD tool, or even as a full
    > feature application development tool is a wise choice. The is no other
    > system which offers as manny data-centric properties and functions as
    > Access. With Access, you can use either linked or disconnected tables just
    > fine. The relationships are respected either way. If using the SQL-Server
    > engine, you can't make a better choice than an Access ADP for LAN use.
    > --
    > Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
    > Microsoft Access
    > Free Access downloads
    > http://www.datastrat.com
    > http://www.mvps.org/access
    >
    > <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    > > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    > > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    > > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    > > quickly.
    > >
    > > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    > > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    > > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    > > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    > > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    > > was doing it wrong.
    > >
    > > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    > > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    > > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    > >
    > > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > > Bruce
    > >
     
  5. Pat Hartman\(MVP\)

    Pat Hartman\(MVP\)
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Let me second Arvin's remarks. I have used .mdb's with linked tables as the
    fe for many different types of RDBMS'; SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Sybase, etc.
    In my mind, there is no comparison. The .adp is restricted to SQL Server
    tables. It can't even link to Jet tables! so I wouldn't even consider it
    Access. It's design tools are poorer and buggier too.

    Go with the .mdb and linked tables. Just remember to use queries with
    criteria as the RecordSources for your forms. For forms that you will use
    only to display data, set the dataset property of the query to snapshot to
    improve efficiency.

    Jet makes every effort to pass Jet queries through to SQL Server so you get
    much of the .adp functionality without any of the restrictions.

    <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    > quickly.
    >
    > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    > was doing it wrong.
    >
    > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    >
    > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    >
    > thanks,
    > Bruce
    >
     
  6. bkrasnof@gmail.com

    bkrasnof@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Pat,

    Thanks, that helps. I tried linked tables briefly and for some reason
    I thought it wasn't seeing the foreign key relationships I setup in SQL
    2005. So ADP seemed smarter, now I realize that I didn't give it
    enough time and I should try the linked tables approach.

    The ADP projects have different designers than linked tables approach?
    I didn't realize, the form and report designer seemed the same.

    thanks,
    Bruce

    Pat Hartman(MVP) wrote:
    > Let me second Arvin's remarks. I have used .mdb's with linked tables as the
    > fe for many different types of RDBMS'; SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Sybase, etc.
    > In my mind, there is no comparison. The .adp is restricted to SQL Server
    > tables. It can't even link to Jet tables! so I wouldn't even consider it
    > Access. It's design tools are poorer and buggier too.
    >
    > Go with the .mdb and linked tables. Just remember to use queries with
    > criteria as the RecordSources for your forms. For forms that you will use
    > only to display data, set the dataset property of the query to snapshot to
    > improve efficiency.
    >
    > Jet makes every effort to pass Jet queries through to SQL Server so you get
    > much of the .adp functionality without any of the restrictions.
    >
    > <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    > > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    > > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    > > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    > > quickly.
    > >
    > > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    > > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    > > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    > > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    > > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    > > was doing it wrong.
    > >
    > > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    > > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    > > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    > >
    > > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > > Bruce
    > >
     
  7. Arvin Meyer [MVP]

    Arvin Meyer [MVP]
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The advantage of using an MDB front-end instead of an ADP front-end , at
    least for me, is that I can:

    1. Use local temporary tables for transaction processing. (Much faster than
    anything else)

    2. Use VBA functions in queries. (1000's of times more versitile than T-SQL)

    3. Link multiple sources (Oracle, SQL-Server, Jet, etc. tables) in the same
    query.

    There are other reasons, but those are the most significant to me.
    --
    Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
    Microsoft Access
    Free Access downloads
    http://www.datastrat.com
    http://www.mvps.org/access

    <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1150666103.708718.246460@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi Arvin,
    >
    > Thanks for your info, how would you describe the differences between
    > the ADP approach vs. the linked tables approach.
    >
    > I've been very happy with ADP, I create everything in SQL 2005 so I
    > don't care if Access 2003 can't do that, but the forms, queries,
    > reports, etc. features are terrific.
    >
    > But I've seen some people say to use linked tables instead, just not
    > sure the main pros/cons.
    >
    > thanks!
    > -Bruce
    >
    > Arvin Meyer [MVP] wrote:
    >> Unfortunately, Microsoft hasn't put the resources into developing ADPs to
    >> their full potential. Yes, they should be good for the next 5 years, and
    >> maybe a bit afterwards, but Microsoft will not be doing any further
    >> development with them in their push to force everything into .NET
    >> programming. That said, using Access as a RAD tool, or even as a full
    >> feature application development tool is a wise choice. The is no other
    >> system which offers as manny data-centric properties and functions as
    >> Access. With Access, you can use either linked or disconnected tables
    >> just
    >> fine. The relationships are respected either way. If using the SQL-Server
    >> engine, you can't make a better choice than an Access ADP for LAN use.
    >> --
    >> Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
    >> Microsoft Access
    >> Free Access downloads
    >> http://www.datastrat.com
    >> http://www.mvps.org/access
    >>
    >> <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    >> > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    >> > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    >> > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    >> > quickly.
    >> >
    >> > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    >> > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    >> > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    >> > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    >> > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    >> > was doing it wrong.
    >> >
    >> > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    >> > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    >> > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    >> >
    >> > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    >> >
    >> > thanks,
    >> > Bruce
    >> >

    >
     
  8. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    ARVIN

    {censored word, do not repeat.} YOU AND {censored word, do not repeat.} YOR MISINFORMATION


    Microsoft hasn't put ANY resources into MDB these past 5 years so i
    dont know {censored word, do not repeat.} you are talking about

    Access Data Projects kick {censored word, do not repeat.}.

    Spit on MDB users anywhere

    {censored word, do not repeat.}ing idiots; use a real program and maybe you won't need to

    compact and repair
    reboot the fileserver to kick people out of your app

    your users won't need to wait 30 seconds to open their app

    ADP kicks MDB {censored word, do not repeat.} any day of the week.

    don't listen to these old {censored word, do not repeat.}.

    MDB is worthless.

    ADP is fully functional; it is a zillion times better than MDB.




    Arvin Meyer [MVP] wrote:
    > Unfortunately, Microsoft hasn't put the resources into developing ADPs to
    > their full potential. Yes, they should be good for the next 5 years, and
    > maybe a bit afterwards, but Microsoft will not be doing any further
    > development with them in their push to force everything into .NET
    > programming. That said, using Access as a RAD tool, or even as a full
    > feature application development tool is a wise choice. The is no other
    > system which offers as manny data-centric properties and functions as
    > Access. With Access, you can use either linked or disconnected tables just
    > fine. The relationships are respected either way. If using the SQL-Server
    > engine, you can't make a better choice than an Access ADP for LAN use.
    > --
    > Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
    > Microsoft Access
    > Free Access downloads
    > http://www.datastrat.com
    > http://www.mvps.org/access
    >
    > <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    > > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    > > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    > > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    > > quickly.
    > >
    > > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    > > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    > > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    > > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    > > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    > > was doing it wrong.
    > >
    > > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    > > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    > > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    > >
    > > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > > Bruce
    > >
     
  9. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Linked tables are {censored word, do not repeat.}ing CRAP.

    they can get out of date; so you need to refresh all your linked tables
    whenever you open your app.

    if you add a column in sql and you want it to show up on the front
    end??

    it requires you to go to the linked table manager or some other
    bullshit.

    i applaud your strength in using ADP.

    ADP have much more powerful parameterization than anything available in
    MDB.

    1) you have a sproc looking for a parameter @PLU
    2) you have a form with a field 'PLU'

    the sproc will automatically negotiate to the value of the control.

    it's really the most beautiful thing i've ever seen




    bkrasnof@gmail.com wrote:
    > Hi Arvin,
    >
    > Thanks for your info, how would you describe the differences between
    > the ADP approach vs. the linked tables approach.
    >
    > I've been very happy with ADP, I create everything in SQL 2005 so I
    > don't care if Access 2003 can't do that, but the forms, queries,
    > reports, etc. features are terrific.
    >
    > But I've seen some people say to use linked tables instead, just not
    > sure the main pros/cons.
    >
    > thanks!
    > -Bruce
    >
    > Arvin Meyer [MVP] wrote:
    > > Unfortunately, Microsoft hasn't put the resources into developing ADPs to
    > > their full potential. Yes, they should be good for the next 5 years, and
    > > maybe a bit afterwards, but Microsoft will not be doing any further
    > > development with them in their push to force everything into .NET
    > > programming. That said, using Access as a RAD tool, or even as a full
    > > feature application development tool is a wise choice. The is no other
    > > system which offers as manny data-centric properties and functions as
    > > Access. With Access, you can use either linked or disconnected tables just
    > > fine. The relationships are respected either way. If using the SQL-Server
    > > engine, you can't make a better choice than an Access ADP for LAN use.
    > > --
    > > Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
    > > Microsoft Access
    > > Free Access downloads
    > > http://www.datastrat.com
    > > http://www.mvps.org/access
    > >
    > > <bkrasnof@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1150631264.673642.228660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > > Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
    > > > front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
    > > > great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
    > > > wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
    > > > quickly.
    > > >
    > > > I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
    > > > my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
    > > > understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
    > > > use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
    > > > relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
    > > > was doing it wrong.
    > > >
    > > > I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
    > > > away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
    > > > as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.
    > > >
    > > > Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?
    > > >
    > > > thanks,
    > > > Bruce
    > > >
     

Share This Page