moving _be to sql server 2005

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

There is an A2007 backend db that is likely to move over to the SQL
Server 2005 in the not to distant future. When it does my preference
is to NOT use dsn. I was thinking along the lines of ado. Haven't
done any work using ADO so I was wondering if there are 'gottchas' I
should be aware of?
Thanks.
John
 
Why not go DSN-less?

Seehttp://www.accessmvp.com/djsteele/DSNLessLinks.htmlfor one approach.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVPhttp://www.AccessMVP.com/djsteele
Co-author: "Access 2010 Solutions", published by Wiley
(no e-mails, please!)






- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

Not bad. Not bad at all. I would assume this could be applied as
well to an existing A2007 db that is already connected to sql server
backend with dsn/odbc connections (which makes me drool everytime I
think about getting rid of the dsn)?
.... John
 
Definitely. In fact, the sample code assumes that it's an existing database
already connected.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://www.AccessMVP.com/djsteele
Co-author: "Access 2010 Solutions", published by Wiley
(no e-mails, please!)




Not bad. Not bad at all. I would assume this could be applied as
well to an existing A2007 db that is already connected to sql server
backend with dsn/odbc connections (which makes me drool everytime I
think about getting rid of the dsn)?
.... John
 
Definitely. In fact, the sample code assumes that it's an existing database
already connected.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVPhttp://www.AccessMVP.com/djsteele
Co-author: "Access 2010 Solutions", published by Wiley
(no e-mails, please!)



 Not bad.  Not bad at all.  I would assume this could be applied as
well to an existing A2007 db that is already connected to sql server
backend with dsn/odbc connections (which makes me drool everytime I
think about getting rid of the dsn)?
... John
Click to expand...



Thanks. I wondered about the sample the way it was reading that it
was for an existing db. The more I look at your sample, the more I
think 'goodbye dsn headaches'. One other thing, by using your sample,
is that all that would be necessary or do I need to go to forms and
add some code (which I might need to do but hard to say until sample
tried and tested)?

.... John
 
Thanks.  I wondered about the sample the way it was reading that it
was for an existing db.  The more I look at your sample, the more I
think 'goodbye dsn headaches'.  One other thing, by using your sample,
is that all that would be necessary or do I need to go to forms and
add some code (which I might need to do but hard to say until sample
tried and tested)?

... John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

Now I remember what I also wanted to ask above. In your sample you
use ODBC in the connections. Is it possible and better to use OLEDB?
If so, would all that is necessary is to change the ODBC to OLEDB or
would there be more involved?
Thanks...John
 
In your sample you use ODBC in the connections.
Is it possible and better to use OLEDB?
Click to expand...

Not unless you use ("classic") ADO, which was highly hyped by Microsoft and
others, but was never a "better" solution. "Classic" ADO, in Microsoft's
"real world of development" (Dot Net) has long been superceded by ADO.NET
(the two share only the letters "ADO" in the name, and are not built on the
same object model, nor is ADO.NET based on OLEdb.
If so, would all that is necessary is to change
the ODBC to OLEDB or would there be
more involved?
Click to expand...

No, that is not all that would be necessary; it would be necessary to
rewrite all your I/O statements. FYI, the Access team now recommends
MDB/ACCDB - Jet/ACE - ODBC - server DB as the method of choice.
 
You cannot use OleDB to create linked tables.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://www.AccessMVP.com/djsteele
Co-author: "Access 2010 Solutions", published by Wiley
(no e-mails, please!)



John said:
- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

Now I remember what I also wanted to ask above. In your sample you
use ODBC in the connections. Is it possible and better to use OLEDB?
If so, would all that is necessary is to change the ODBC to OLEDB or
would there be more involved?
Thanks...John
 
Back
Top