Remotely managing Access2K

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by helveticus, May 15, 2008.

  1. helveticus

    helveticus Guest

    Because of licensing reasons, I plan on using ASP.NET 3.5 /Access 2K
    for a specific site..

    What tools could I use to remotely manage the Access 2K DB? Would a
    simple ODBC connection be adequate? I read some posts warning against
    ADP, (plus I don't want to re-write extra code.). If ODBC is ok, I
    presume the remote DB could be managed via a local client
    application. Are there any networking issues to be aware of which
    possibly could play havoc? Thanks for any pointers.
     
    helveticus, May 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. helveticus

    helveticus Guest

    Thanks for the reply. I have been working with A2K and SQL Express,
    using A2K as the front-end. However, I find nothing beats Access for
    designing front-end applications in short notice.

    In the present case, I would like to capitalize on the DB manager I
    wrote in A2K. It allows me to do basic CRUD operations on all relevant
    SQL Express tables (no database schema modifications) plus specific
    processing. I don't want to replicate this work in the web's Admin
    section. Ideally, the info should be download/uploaded and processed
    locally. Assuming I upgrade to ACC2003/ACC2007, would this kind of
    "remote DB management" be possible via OleDB for instance? TIA.
     
    helveticus, May 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. My guess the guy has written te whole application in MS Access. And links
    SQL Express tables from MS Access..
    Which is OK.

    Just use SQL Express from your ASP.NET application and continue to use MS
    Access as a front end for desktop users
    Do not use ASP.NET in way so it's hitting MS Access linked tables. There is
    no really point in that (except having problems :)

    George.


    "Mark Rae [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > "helveticus" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Thanks for the reply. I have been working with A2K and SQL Express,
    >> using A2K as the front-end. However, I find nothing beats Access for
    >> designing front-end applications in short notice.

    >
    > Er, OK... I'm puzzled as to why you would want to use Access as a
    > front-end to SQL Server Express when it has its own:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...ae-4bd1-4e3d-94b8-5a0f62bf7796&displaylang=en
    >
    >> In the present case, I would like to capitalize on the DB manager I
    >> wrote in A2K. It allows me to do basic CRUD operations on all relevant
    >> SQL Express tables (no database schema modifications) plus specific
    >> processing.

    >
    > Er, so are you now saying that the RDBMS you're using is SQL Server
    > Express...? If so, I can't understand what you need Access for...
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mark Rae
    > ASP.NET MVP
    > http://www.markrae.net
     
    George Ter-Saakov, May 15, 2008
    #3
  4. helveticus

    helveticus Guest

    Thanks for both replies.

    George got the point: I am linking up via ODBC to SQL Express tables
    and would like to keeping doing so even when the DB is moved over to a
    ISP host. This works fine on my local machine and was hoping that this
    kind of setup would also work in such a remote configuration.

    Could you please elaborate on " Do not use ASP.NET in way so it's
    hitting MS Access linked tables." ? Does this refer to locking, etc.?
    TIA
     
    helveticus, May 15, 2008
    #4
  5. helveticus

    helveticus Guest

    Thanks. Let me rephrase the question then. My original idea was to use
    A2K as a back-end on the site to avoid SQL Server charges. It seems
    however that one cannot use an ODBC connection to link up to a remote
    JET backend database file such as A2K, since it is not a socket based
    system accessible via TCP/IP. Furthermore, as you pointed out, using
    A2K as a DB would be risky since MS has dropped the product.

    From the posts I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the
    best approach would be to use SQL Server on the site, link up to this
    DB via ODBC from a local Access front-end client to "manage" tables
    (ie. simple edit/insert/delete, no schema alteration). For "heavy
    artillery" operations, I would use SQL Server Management.

    Is ODBC reliable? Some posts suggest that ODBC are vulnerable to
    connection break ups, etc
     
    helveticus, May 16, 2008
    #5
  6. I meant hit SQL Express DB directly from your .NET application.
    do not hit your MS Access mdb file which has only linked tables.

    There is no problem with ODBC working over network whatsoever. Then only
    thing it's as reliable as network is. So may be it's not good idea to run it
    over wireless network,,,
    George.


    "helveticus" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks for both replies.
    >
    > George got the point: I am linking up via ODBC to SQL Express tables
    > and would like to keeping doing so even when the DB is moved over to a
    > ISP host. This works fine on my local machine and was hoping that this
    > kind of setup would also work in such a remote configuration.
    >
    > Could you please elaborate on " Do not use ASP.NET in way so it's
    > hitting MS Access linked tables." ? Does this refer to locking, etc.?
    > TIA
     
    George Ter-Saakov, May 16, 2008
    #6
  7. helveticus

    sloan Guest

    Yeah dude (to the OP).

    Please heed this advice. The sooner you make the break and better off you
    will be.

    Sql Server Express Edition is FREE.

    Scratching your back by putting your arm between your legs is the equivalent
    of trying to use ODBC/Access.

    I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to firmly let you know that it would
    be much wiser to heed this advice.





    "Mark Rae [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:%23KEm$...
    > "helveticus" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> My original idea was to use A2K as a back-end on the site to avoid
    >> SQL Server charges.

    >
    > SQL Server Express Edition is *completely* free.
    >
    >> From the posts I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the
    >> best approach would be to use SQL Server on the site, link up to this
    >> DB via ODBC from a local Access front-end client to "manage" tables
    >> (ie. simple edit/insert/delete, no schema alteration). For "heavy
    >> artillery" operations, I would use SQL Server Management.

    >
    > As I have already mentioned, SQL Server Express Edition already has its
    > own management software, so there's really no need to use anything else to
    > manage it. That's what it's for...
    >
    >> Is ODBC reliable? Some posts suggest that ODBC are vulnerable to
    >> connection break ups, etc

    >
    > If you use SQL Server Express Management then you don't need to worry
    > about ODBC at all...
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mark Rae
    > ASP.NET MVP
    > http://www.markrae.net
     
    sloan, May 16, 2008
    #7
  8. My guess it's not management aka (creating tables, backing up....)
    It's management in terms of an applicaiton that updates tables, insert
    records and does all kind of business logic needed to be done when something
    happens...
    The Sql's managment software does not do all that...

    PS: I do find MS Acceess the best tool to quickly create a nice application
    with reports and such..

    George.

    "sloan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Yeah dude (to the OP).
    >
    > Please heed this advice. The sooner you make the break and better off you
    > will be.
    >
    > Sql Server Express Edition is FREE.
    >
    > Scratching your back by putting your arm between your legs is the
    > equivalent of trying to use ODBC/Access.
    >
    > I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to firmly let you know that it
    > would be much wiser to heed this advice.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Mark Rae [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23KEm$...
    >> "helveticus" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> My original idea was to use A2K as a back-end on the site to avoid
    >>> SQL Server charges.

    >>
    >> SQL Server Express Edition is *completely* free.
    >>
    >>> From the posts I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the
    >>> best approach would be to use SQL Server on the site, link up to this
    >>> DB via ODBC from a local Access front-end client to "manage" tables
    >>> (ie. simple edit/insert/delete, no schema alteration). For "heavy
    >>> artillery" operations, I would use SQL Server Management.

    >>
    >> As I have already mentioned, SQL Server Express Edition already has its
    >> own management software, so there's really no need to use anything else
    >> to manage it. That's what it's for...
    >>
    >>> Is ODBC reliable? Some posts suggest that ODBC are vulnerable to
    >>> connection break ups, etc

    >>
    >> If you use SQL Server Express Management then you don't need to worry
    >> about ODBC at all...
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Mark Rae
    >> ASP.NET MVP
    >> http://www.markrae.net

    >
    >
     
    George Ter-Saakov, May 16, 2008
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Soni
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,094
  2. Joe
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    572
    Thomas Kratz
    Sep 29, 2003
  3. Mitchley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    621
    Mitchley
    Jun 10, 2004
  4. Raghu Rudra

    Different behavior locally vs remotely

    Raghu Rudra, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    336
    Raghu Rudra
    Jul 21, 2003
  5. PhilTheGap
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    521
    PhilTheGap
    Jan 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page