Is MDAC required on client for Windows app on shared drive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron Fluegge
  • Start date Start date
R

Ron Fluegge

I've looked on the MSDN site and in all of the news groups and can't find
the specific issue so I'm posting it to try to find an answer.

I have a Windows .NET 1.1 application that accesses data from a SQL Server
2000 database on a network server.

The application is installed on a network drive and clients access the
application by either mapping directly to the server drive or by referencing
it as \\servername\sharename\....myApp.exe in a desktop icon.

Under this circumstance, our clients are installing the .NET Framework 1.1
redistributable on each user's machine so that they can run the application
"locally" from the network drive.

However, one of the prerequisites for our installation is MDAC 2.7 SP1 since
that is what we are developing with and we reference the .NET Framework 1.1
System.Data namespace.

The question has come up from our clients as to whether or not MDAC is
required to be installed at all "on each user's machine" since the
application is "running" off of a shared drive and accessing the SQL 2000
server. Our answer is "yes", since it doesn't matter where the application
is "installed" or being run from since the app is actually running in each
user's machine environment.

The question is: Is our understanding correct?

In looking at the .NET Framework 1.1 Requirements page, it "qualifies" the
MDAC requirement for the "Client" in that it is only "required for data
access" AND we assume that it means the machine "where the application is
being run" -- even if run from a shared or network drive.

I know that this should be clear and really simple, but it wouldn't be the
first time that I've thought that I understood something correctly and later
found out that I was wrong ... please consider this a sanity check.

Thanks...

Ron
 
I think your understanding is correct. The component is required on the
machine that will be running the app. Event though the central application
store is a server, every time the app is run, the latest copy (if there is a
newer one) is downloaded to the users's machine, and then it is run locally
(with limited privleges, though this can be reconfigured).

An easy way to prove or disprove this, is to try running the app on a
machine that does not have all the required components installed.
 
Thanks.

I was hoping that this would be a "definitional" issue -- not requiring a
"physical test" as we are in the final throws of finishing a product.

All of our testing and current test platforms "assumed the requirement" so
our HTML installer does the Framework, MDAC, etc automatically. Then up
pops this question and we hoped that someone would say "Yes, it is required"
.... and come from someone who is from MS or who can speak with "authority".

We also include a "trust" installer that upgrades the runtime security
policy under the Machine | Code Groups | All_Code only to our strong named
assemblies. Works just fine even when running from the application store.

Ron
 
Hi Ron,

Thank you for posting in the community!

First of all, I would like to confirm my understanding of your issue. From
your description, I understand that you need to know whether MDAC is
required to be installed on client machine when the executable file is in a
shared folder on network. If there is any misunderstanding, please feel
free to let me know.

I think your understanding is correct. MDAC 2.7 sp1 is required on the
client machine. The client machine means that the machine actually running
the application. Because it is client machine's CPU who is executing the
code. When the machine needs to access the database, it requires the data
providers to achieve this. The providers are in the MDAC package.

However in Windows 2000 and later versions, MDAC are automatically
installed and updated in Windows Update. The latest version can be
downloaded from the following link: (MDAC 2.8)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-
b037-185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en

Does this answer your question? If anything is unclear, please feel free to
reply to the post.

Kevin Yu
=======
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights."
 
Kevin,

Yes, it does answer my question and thanks to everyone who posted a
response.

Sometimes we all need a sanity check ... and this was my time. If you need
your sanity checked though, I'm probably not the one to ask for at least the
next 3 weeks <GRIN>.

Surprisingly, I have clients who won't let their employees use the Windows
Update, but use SUS instead and then take out the major SPs -- like W2K SP4
saying that it hasn't been "tested" and will break existing apps.

It's amazing to me, but probably not to a lot of others in this newsgroup,
that I/T departments will be running that far "out of date" on SPs -- SP4
came out, what in June 2003?

Anyway, I've spent the last 4 days trying to explain why it's a "good idea"
to have the W2K service packs even though Framework 1.1 prerequisites don't
require any SPs as far as the docs on the MSDN site show.

Again, many thanks to everyone.

Ron
 
Hi Ron,

I'm glad to make it clear for you. Thank you for sharing your experience
with all the people here. If you have any questions, please feel free to
post them in the cummunity.

Kevin Yu
=======
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights."
 
Back
Top