adp vs mdb

  • Thread starter Thread starter BillE
  • Start date Start date
Actually, that's what I'm suggesting that people make sure they do
when reading one of Michael's articles. *Make sure* you evaluate
it's factual content, and don't get lost in Michael's wording.
While we're on the subject, do you remember any of the flaws or
issues the article pointed out? ADP's were a fledgling technology
in 2000, so it's possible that the problems were addressed in
later versions.
Click to expand...

Some of them were, and those fixes caused new bugs that were just as
bad. Then the fix for those bugs caused the previous fix to revert.

DAPs were heavily criticized as incomplete and basically useless,
and ADPs as a flawed effort (Michael pointed out that the workset
and the layers between ADP and database were the same or more than
between MDB and database).
Oh, and you know this how? On his own website, he actually has
(had?) a response to people who found him to be overly negative or
emotional. Whether you agree or disagree that he is, obviously
it's something that others besides me have accused him of.
Click to expand...

I would say the accusation is completely unfounded. Completely.
Quite true. But I have personally seen him rant at least as much
as anybody else, if not more, and whether it's based in fact or
not, a rant is still a rant, and may make something out to be more
of a problem than it is.
Click to expand...

I like rants. It shows that somebody cares about what they are
writing about.
That might be an excuse for him to be pissed, but that's certainly
no excuse for arrogance. In fact, I can't really think of an
excuse for someone to be arrogant. Besides, if you can't take a
little heat, then you don't belong in newsgroups.
Click to expand...

Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, seems to me. I never found
Michael particularly arrogant. I found him sometimes dismissive of
those who'd demonstrated themselves to be undeserving of his
attention, but that's not the same thing as arrogant.
I wasn't aware that he was back at MS now,
Click to expand...

Not "back" -- he was never an MS employee, just a contractor. He was
hired by MS on the internationalization team in 2003 or 2004
(thereabouts -- don't recall for certain).
but then, I don't exactly try to
keep track of his life. :-) As for the details of why MS gave him
the boot, only he and MS know that for sure, but my impression
from comments I heard around that time was that there were
personality conflicts.
Click to expand...

I know the story the way Michael told it, which is most likely to be
as unflattering to MS as anyone's version, and he always said that
the article hurt a lot of feelings on the Access team because he was
criticizing them for things that they knew were not completely
implemented and cutting them no slack on it.

Of course, at the same time as that happened, he was greatly
praising them for the nice improvements in Jet 4, especially with
regard to replication (which was his specialization back then).
That's not what I was saying. What I was saying was that his
opinions are tainted by his perceptions (as are all our opinions).
Click to expand...

I don't see this as a salient observation -- the sky is blue, but
that doesn't have any impact on any of my posts (well, if it's
cloudy, I guess, I might be in a bad mood...).
For example, many
people believe VB.Net is great, many people believe it's
inherently flawed. In fact, both are right, it simply depends on
where they're coming from and what they need out of the language.
Click to expand...

Some people (like me) think it's neither great or inherently flawed.
It just *is*. That doesn't mean I can't criticize it for its
failings nor praise it for what's good about it.
But getting back to Michael, his
opinions of the relative importance of some issues often don't
match many other peoples', for right or for wrong. There's no
doubt in my mind, however, that if he brings up a point, it's
something to at least be looked at...just don't think that because
he says a product has flaws that it's a big deal. All products
have flaws, the question is whether it's really an issue for any
given person.
Click to expand...

If his article had raised issues that were insignificant, I wouldn't
be mentioning it. In fact, I've never known Michael to criticize any
MS product on trivial grounds. Indeed, he and I frequently got in
arguments over MS products, with him defending MS! That's why I have
always seen him as having the highest level of integrity, because he
would criticize MS where he fault it was warranted and defend MS
when he thought *that* was warranted.
I'd love to hear from those people, because never mind that I've
never had problems, I've never heard of others who have (within
the limits of the technology, mind you...if someone wants to cache
something in a local table, that's a simple limitation of the
technology, not a problem per se).
Click to expand...

Check out comp.databases.ms-access for posts from Steve Jorgensen
and Lyle Fairfield. Both gave ADPs a huge effort and eventually,
both gave up on them entirely.
If the product were as flawed as you seem to suggest, I suspect we
would have heard a LOT more about it in a forum like this...yet I
can't remember the last time somebody said it was a flawed
technology here, not counting this discussion.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the people who are satisfied with ADPs were not
Access developers before, so they don't know what they are missing
in terms of a well-designed and reliable front-end development
platform.
 
DAPs were heavily criticized as incomplete and basically useless,
and ADPs as a flawed effort (Michael pointed out that the workset
and the layers between ADP and database were the same or more than
between MDB and database).
Click to expand...

Ummm...DAPs or ADPs? DAPs certainly WERE useless! But I'll assume you
meant ADPs. Do you have *any* information on what the problems were, or why
he deemed them useless? Without that, it's kind of difficult to offer any
kind of cogent argument for or against them. It becomes strictly a case of
"I remember he didn't like them" vs. "I don't see any problems".
I would say the accusation is completely unfounded. Completely.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never suggested something to him that he disagreed with.
I've been on the receiving end of his abusive mannerisms, and it's not
pretty. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who's run into that
sort of behaviour from him.
I like rants. It shows that somebody cares about what they are
writing about.
Click to expand...

This is true, and I've ranted as much as the next guy, I'm sure, but it
doesn't always lead to the most rational arguments or conclusions.
Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder, seems to me. I never found
Michael particularly arrogant. I found him sometimes dismissive of
those who'd demonstrated themselves to be undeserving of his
attention, but that's not the same thing as arrogant.
Click to expand...

Ummm...actually, I would say that's a prime example of arrogance.
Not "back" -- he was never an MS employee, just a contractor. He was
hired by MS on the internationalization team in 2003 or 2004
(thereabouts -- don't recall for certain).
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for clarifying.
I know the story the way Michael told it, which is most likely to be
as unflattering to MS as anyone's version, and he always said that
the article hurt a lot of feelings on the Access team because he was
criticizing them for things that they knew were not completely
implemented and cutting them no slack on it.
Click to expand...

That's possible, but then I would have to ask, why criticize people about
something they already know and have acknowledged are incomplete
Of course, at the same time as that happened, he was greatly
praising them for the nice improvements in Jet 4, especially with
regard to replication (which was his specialization back then).
Click to expand...

Umm...so could it be that that was perceived as dumping on everybody else
while praising himself and/or the people he worked with? That's sorta what
it sounds like from what you just said. He *did* design their conflict
resolver, after all, so I presume he worked a fair bit with the replication
people at MS.
I don't see this as a salient observation -- the sky is blue, but
that doesn't have any impact on any of my posts (well, if it's
cloudy, I guess, I might be in a bad mood...).
Click to expand...

Basically, I'm saying that you should treat Michael like you would treat a
doctor...if it's anything important, get a second opinion. Facts are facts,
but different people interpret them differently, and with his tendency to
rant, you may want to seek a more rational observer before deciding whether
something is a serious problem or a minor one. I will give him this,
though, if Michael says there *is* a problem, it's almost certain that there
is.

To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers are faster
and more stable than the same solution with fewer layers, is it really a
problem that there are more of them? Basically what I'm saying is to look
at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them
critically, and preferably do your own testing or find other opinions about
the issues before assuming that they're as much of a problem for you as they
were for Michael.
If his article had raised issues that were insignificant, I wouldn't
be mentioning it. In fact, I've never known Michael to criticize any
MS product on trivial grounds. Indeed, he and I frequently got in
arguments over MS products, with him defending MS! That's why I have
always seen him as having the highest level of integrity, because he
would criticize MS where he fault it was warranted and defend MS
when he thought *that* was warranted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's true, but that certainly hasn't been my impression of him
over the years.
Check out comp.databases.ms-access for posts from Steve Jorgensen
and Lyle Fairfield. Both gave ADPs a huge effort and eventually,
both gave up on them entirely.
Click to expand...

Steve has 5670 messages in that group, and Lyle has 2693 at the time of this
post...could you be a little more specific, please?
I think a lot of the people who are satisfied with ADPs were not
Access developers before, so they don't know what they are missing
in terms of a well-designed and reliable front-end development
platform.
Click to expand...

I don't know of very many people who jumped into ADPs with no previous
Access experience. Certainly I didn't...I've been using Access since v1.1.



Rob
 
Ummm...DAPs or ADPs? DAPs certainly WERE useless! But I'll
assume you meant ADPs.
Click to expand...

No, I made two comments, one about DAPs and one about ADPs.
Do you have *any* information on what the problems were, or why
he deemed them useless?
Click to expand...

You just agreed that DAPs were useless.
Without that, it's kind of difficult to offer any
kind of cogent argument for or against them. It becomes strictly
a case of "I remember he didn't like them" vs. "I don't see any
problems".
Click to expand...

It was EIGHT YEARS AGO. Sorry I can't cite chapter and verse.
You've obviously never suggested something to him that he
disagreed with.
Click to expand...

I've done so many, many times. And I've had him disagree with me
strongly. I returned the favor.

I didn't see any issue then and don't now.
I've been on the receiving end of his abusive mannerisms, and it's
not pretty. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who's run
into that sort of behaviour from him.
Click to expand...

I've been on the receiving end of his tirades, too, but apparently
I'm not such a wilting flower as some people.
This is true, and I've ranted as much as the next guy, I'm sure,
but it doesn't always lead to the most rational arguments or
conclusions.
Click to expand...

I've never seen anything from Michael that was irrational (except on
non-computer-related subjects, such as his taste in Sci-Fi).
Ummm...actually, I would say that's a prime example of arrogance.
Click to expand...

When I wrote that I was thinking of the people to whom Michael has
offered reasonable advice who then reject and tell him they don't
want to take his advice, and then ask him to tell them what else
they can do. At that point, he would become dismissive, rightly so,
in my opinion, and it was then someone who had demonstrated
themselves no longer be worthy of his time and attention.

Other than this situation, where he was definitely provoked by
rudeness and stupidity, I never saw him be dismissive in that way.
In fact, I was always amazed at how patient he was and how many
really simple questions he'd take the time to give a good answer to.

[]
That's possible, but then I would have to ask, why criticize
people about something they already know and have acknowledged are
incomplete
Click to expand...

Because they weren't acknowledging it in public, only in private.
Michael felt the problems were bad enough (and the marketing
particularly bad) that something had to be said about it publicly.

I'm glad he said what he said.

And he certainly helped a lot of us understand why we were
encountering the problems we encountered in early work with A2K.
Umm...so could it be that that was perceived as dumping on
everybody else while praising himself and/or the people he worked
with?
Click to expand...

Huh? He had nothing to do with *developing* Jet replication. He was
just a user of it (though he did program the Partial Replica and the
conflict resolver wizards on contract to MS).
That's sorta what
it sounds like from what you just said. He *did* design their
conflict resolver, after all, so I presume he worked a fair bit
with the replication people at MS.
Click to expand...

Not on developing the actual technology -- more as a user of it.

While Michael may have had something to do with bringing some of the
ideas for enhancing Jet replication to the attention of the Jet
development team (I don't know if it was still part of the Access
team at that point or had been moved to the Windows team; probably
that didn't happen until after the release of Jet 4, since Jet
wasn't part of Windows until Active Directory was implemented in
Windows 2000 Server, which would have been some time after the
release of Access 2000). But he didn't actually choose what got
implemented or doing any of the work to actual implement it.
Basically, I'm saying that you should treat Michael like you would
treat a doctor...if it's anything important, get a second opinion.
Facts are facts, but different people interpret them differently,
and with his tendency to rant, you may want to seek a more
rational observer before deciding whether something is a serious
problem or a minor one. I will give him this, though, if Michael
says there *is* a problem, it's almost certain that there is.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll just have to disagree here. I consider Michael's
integrity to make him as trustworthy as any single individual when
it comes to laying out how he sees things.
To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers
are faster and more stable than the same solution with fewer
layers, is it really a problem that there are more of them?
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the current Access documentation? It says that
MDB+ODBC is recommended rather than ADP+OLEDB, because it's more
efficient. Here's what it says:

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Office/en-us/library/1dce641e-ba1c-446a
-8ff2-221769a58ba51033.mspx?mfr=true

Access Data Projects (ADPs)

An Access Data Project is an OLE document file, like the .xls
or.doc file formats. It contains forms, reports, macros, VBA
modules, and a connection string. All tables and queries are
stored in SQL Server. The ADP architecture was designed to create
client-server applications. Because of this, there is a limit to
the number of records that Access returns in any recordset. This
limit is configurable, but you typically must build enough
filtering into your application so that you do not reach the
limit.

Access uses OLEDB to communicate with SQL Server. To provide the
Jet-like cursor behavior desired for desktop applications, Access
implements the Client Data Manager (CDM) as an additional layer
between Access and OLEDB.

Because of the layers required to get from Access to SQL Server in
the ADP architecture, it is often easier to optimize MDB/ACCDB
file solutions. However, there are some scenarios where a report
might be generated significantly faster in an ADP file. To add
these performance improvements and retain the flexibility of SQL
Server, you can build the majority of the application in an MDB or
ACCDB file and have the file load reports from a referenced ADP
file.

One advantage that ADP files have over files in MDB or ACCDB
format is the ability to make design changes to SQL Server
objects. ADP files include graphical designers for tables, views,
stored procedures, functions, and database diagrams.

[]
Perhaps that's true, but that certainly hasn't been my impression
of him over the years.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps my interactions with Michael are more extensive than
yours.
Steve has 5670 messages in that group, and Lyle has 2693 at the
time of this post...could you be a little more specific, please?
Click to expand...

Well, filter to ADP. Look at the later messages, as Lyle dropped out
of CDMA around the time he had concluded that ADPs were not useful.

Same with Steve. In his last year of posting he was frequently
posting about new problems he'd encountered with ADPs, and
eventually concluded that the problems were insurmountable.
I don't know of very many people who jumped into ADPs with no
previous Access experience. Certainly I didn't...I've been using
Access since v1.1.
Click to expand...

Well, all the experienced Access developers I know and respect use
MDBs and never jumped on the ADP bandwagon.
 
ADP is not going out the window

ADP is the future of Accss, the next version of Access will have a much much
better ADP dialect
 
bullshit it's not as convienent

can you copy and paste a view in SQL Server Management Studio?

Can you do it in Query Analzyer?

How about Enterprise Manager

ADP uber alles

JET HAS BEEN DEAD FOR A DECADE
 
Ummm...DAPs or ADPs? DAPs certainly WERE useless! But I'll
No, I made two comments, one about DAPs and one about ADPs.


You just agreed that DAPs were useless.
Click to expand...

As I said, I thought you'd simply mis-typed ADPs.
It was EIGHT YEARS AGO. Sorry I can't cite chapter and verse.
Click to expand...

If it was that long ago, then there's a pretty good chance that ADP's have
largely been fixed by this point, or that some of the information has become
no longer relevant. I'll admit, there's still an odd bug or two in ADP, and
a few things you have to work around, but at least in my experience, it
doesn't seem to be any worse than the various quirks of MDBs.
I've been on the receiving end of his tirades, too, but apparently
I'm not such a wilting flower as some people.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was just as snippy in return, as I am with anybody who talks to me
like that...that doesn't mean I appreciate it, though, or that it's socially
acceptable that he chooses to do so. Verbal abuse is still abuse, and it's
unacceptable to most people.
I've never seen anything from Michael that was irrational (except on
non-computer-related subjects, such as his taste in Sci-Fi).
Click to expand...

This is getting kind of tiring...you obviously like him and defend him, I
don't. Just accept that I think he's the worst personality that respected
programmers have to offer, and leave it at that. I will similarly accept
that he has his admirers, though it's beyond me how he's managed to do so.
Huh? He had nothing to do with *developing* Jet replication. He was
just a user of it (though he did program the Partial Replica and the
conflict resolver wizards on contract to MS).
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said? I never said he developed replication, I said he
would have worked with the people who developed it in order to develop the
conflict resolver so that it could be released along with replication
itself.
Have you looked at the current Access documentation? It says that
MDB+ODBC is recommended rather than ADP+OLEDB, because it's more
efficient. Here's what it says:
Click to expand...

Yes, I've had people like you point it to me countless times. In fact,
someone else (or maybe you) just quoted me EXACTLY that same link and same
text about a week ago. I'll tell you what I've told that person (but not
verbatim): I have not ONCE seen comparitive analyses, or even a
justification as to why ACCDB's are now the preferred method of connecting
to SQL Server. All we have is a single paragraph from Microsoft saying "use
our latest & greatest...we're changing directions yet again (and tomorrow
we'll change to still another new thing...or maybe go back to an old one
that we told you we'd never use again). Oh, and incidentally, this is only
available in our newest product, so go buy it and give us more money." It's
called a vested interest, and I don't take MS's word without any form of
analysis any more than I take Michael's.
Well, perhaps my interactions with Michael are more extensive than
yours.
Click to expand...

From the sounds of it, they have been, but you know what they say about
first impressions. My first discussion with him involved me giving him a
perfectly benign suggestion, and him returning a lengthy rant on just what
he thought of that suggestion. Things went downhill from there.
Well, filter to ADP. Look at the later messages, as Lyle dropped out
of CDMA around the time he had concluded that ADPs were not useful.
Click to expand...

I looked at a couple of threads, and found that there were as many
supporters as detractors of ADP in the threads I looked at. None of them
gave any detailed info as to what was actually wrong with them that I saw.
Same with Steve. In his last year of posting he was frequently
posting about new problems he'd encountered with ADPs, and
eventually concluded that the problems were insurmountable.
Click to expand...

Maybe the were in his environment, but I have yet to run into any
difficulties that couldn't be fairly easily worked around. Microsoft is
vascillating (what else is new?) on whether they're going to be dropped or
expanded in future releases, so until I know for certain that they won't be
used, I'll continue to develop using ADPs for as long as they continue to
fulfill my needs. Given product lifetimes, even if they dropped support
today, I suspect that I would have no difficulties continuing to use them
for another 10 years, by which time, other technologies may well have
surpassed ADPs in terms of usefulness. For right now, however, it's the
most useful solution for my needs, so why should I plan on spending several
months of development time (which I don't have) to switch it to an
environment that I don't find particularly useful to me?
Well, all the experienced Access developers I know and respect use
MDBs and never jumped on the ADP bandwagon.
Click to expand...

I didn't "jump on the bandwagon"; ADPs had been out for several years before
I gave any serious consideration to them. MDBs have their uses, but there
are a number of things you can't do with them (even ignoring the ability to
design from within an ADP). And I, for one, am not going to jump on the MDB
bandwagon just because a single user on an ADP list says that that's what
everyone else is doing. (Hell, I wouldn't do it even if EVERY user on this
list was telling me that...though that would certainly give me pause.)
Perhaps it should tell you something that I migrated *to* ADP from an MDB
setup. I didn't do so without forethought and understanding the benefits
and drawbacks to both formats, and I certainly don't appreciate your
insinuation that I must be an amateur if I'm not doing what everyone else
you know is doing.


Rob
 
Everyone please note that Aaron Kem.pf is attempting to impersonate one of
our regular posters again. Tom would never post such a message.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.


Tom Wickerath MDB said:
ADP is not going out the window

ADP is the future of Accss, the next version of Access will have a much
much better ADP dialect
Click to expand...
 
Everyone please note that Aaron Kem.pf is attempting to impersonate one of
our regular posters again. Tom would never post such a message.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.


Tom Wickerath MDB said:
bullshit it's not as convienent

can you copy and paste a view in SQL Server Management Studio?

Can you do it in Query Analzyer?

How about Enterprise Manager

ADP uber alles

JET HAS BEEN DEAD FOR A DECADE
Click to expand...
 
re:

To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers are faster
and more stable than the same solution with fewer layers, is it really a
problem that there are more of them? Basically what I'm saying is to look
at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them
critically, and preferably do your own testing or find other opinions about
the issues before assuming that they're as much of a problem for you as they
were for Michael.


THANK YOU ROBERT

To take the "more layers" example: hypothetically, if the layers are faster
and more stable than the same solution with fewer layers, is it really a
problem that there are more of them? Basically what I'm saying is to look
at the facts Michael gives you, certainly, but make sure you look at them
critically, and preferably do your own testing or find other opinions about
the issues before assuming that they're as much of a problem for you as they
were for Michael.

THANK YOU ROBERT
 
Microsoft has NOT been reccomending MDB over ADP

what about reporting?
what about DATA SECURITY?
what about ENCRYPTION
what about DATA INTEGRITY
what about ETL TOOLS

you must have missed most of the 90s kid
 
this just flat out ins't true
Access Linked Tables to ODBC = mixing ODBC and OLEDB?

how is MDB linked tables LESS LAYERS than just OLEDB?

isn't ONE LAYER less layers than TWO LAYERS
 
hey punk ass
what about the next sentence

WE RECCOMEND YOU USE ADP FOR REPORTING ALWAYS?

is that the next sentence?
 
Everyone please note that Aaron Kem.pf is attempting to impersonate one of
our regular posters again. Tom would never post such a message.

HTH.
Gunny

See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
Blogs: www.DataDevilDog.BlogSpot.com, www.DatabaseTips.BlogSpot.com
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.


Tom Wickerath MDB said:
Microsoft has NOT been reccomending MDB over ADP

what about reporting?
what about DATA SECURITY?
what about ENCRYPTION
what about DATA INTEGRITY
what about ETL TOOLS

you must have missed most of the 90s kid
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top