Sharing a Front End - TC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Keith
  • Start date Start date
K

Keith

Is there actually any documented evidence to support the claim that
sharing a FE can cause corruption that someone could supply a link to?
I remember reading it somewhere donkey's years ago but can't remember where.

Many thanks.
Keith.
 
I'm fairly sure Microsoft hasn't come out and explicitly stated it anywhere,
if that's what you're looking for.

However, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the fact, and
since it's so simple to split an application, why wouldn't you?
 
Douglas said:
I'm fairly sure Microsoft hasn't come out and explicitly stated it
anywhere, if that's what you're looking for.

However, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the
fact, and since it's so simple to split an application, why wouldn't
you?
Click to expand...

In addition to being simple to do there are numerous reasons to give each user
their own copy of the front end and preventing corruption is only one of them.
If that were completely eliminated it would STILL be a goood idea.
 
This KB article at least *touches* on that possibility to some degree:

How to keep a Jet 4.0 database in top working condition in Access 2000:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;300216

Begin quote:

"Issues to Consider When You Share a Microsoft Jet Database

If you can, do not share a Microsoft Jet database file that is stored on a Microsoft Windows 95, a
Microsoft Windows 98, or a Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me) file share with Windows NT or
Windows 2000 clients. When you have a mixture of computers on a network with some computers running
Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows Me and some running Windows NT or Windows 2000, and you have to
share the database with other network users, Microsoft recommends that you store and share the
database file on a Windows NT or Windows 2000 server with opportunistic locking disabled. Corruption
can occur if you have Windows NT or Windows 2000 client computers share a file that is stored on a
Windows 95, a Windows 98, or a Windows Me file share. This can occur even if the Windows NT or
Windows 2000 client have opportunistic locking disabled. This issue is still under investigation,
and Microsoft will post further information to this article when it becomes available."

End quote

--
Jeff Conrad
Access Junkie - MVP
http://home.bendbroadband.com/conradsystems/accessjunkie.html
http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/articles.html

in message:
 
Hi Keith

Normally I am very reluctant to believe "old wives tales" unless I have
tested them myself, or I can read comments from other competent people
who have tested them. So I often read things and think, "Whoa, where is
his evidence for that?". So by that principle, I should be able to cite
the relevant evidence!

But I can't. I haven't tested it myself, and I haven't seen any
evidence from other people who have actually tested it (not that I've
really looked for that). But it does seem to be commonly believed by
various people who seem competent. So I feel comfortable repeating it -
but I do cover my bases by saying, "it is commonly believed that ...".

It's a bit like the issue of bad network connections increasing the
chance of corruption. I'm prepared to accept that, even though I can't
actually cite any evidence. It just "sounds right", and it is
consistent with what I know about how Access & Jet work.

Sorry I can't be more help. Clearly you can justify splitting the
database on other grounds - eg. the ability to replace the code without
zapping the data. But that benefit, on its own, does not explain why
each person must have their /own copy/ of the (split) front end.

Cheers,
TC
 
Aha! I see the thread (elsewhere) where you are having a problem. :-)

I think that all you can say is, "Tom and Dick and Mary (all of whom
are well-known and respected developers) believe that it is so. I am
happy to follow their belief. But if you have specific evidence to the
contrary, why not start a new thread, so we can all discuss it?" - or
somesuch.

/I/ am safe here, because of the guard words that I quoted before. It
/is/ commonly believed by many experienced developers - no-one can
argue with that, IMO!

Cheers,
TC
 
TC said:
Aha! I see the thread (elsewhere) where you are having a problem. :-)

I think that all you can say is, "Tom and Dick and Mary (all of whom
are well-known and respected developers) believe that it is so. I am
happy to follow their belief. But if you have specific evidence to the
contrary, why not start a new thread, so we can all discuss it?" - or
somesuch.

/I/ am safe here, because of the guard words that I quoted before. It
/is/ commonly believed by many experienced developers - no-one can
argue with that, IMO!

Cheers,
TC
Click to expand...
Thanks TC and to everyone else who responded. :o)
 
Keith,
When I first started working for my current company they had, literally,
thousands of Access databases that were not even split. Users were sharing
the same .mdb file with all the data and user interface. In fact, until I
got here, there were very few who even knew of the concept of a split
database. Because we were going through a conversion process -- from A95 to
A2K -- I essentially mandated splitting the databases, so that they could be
used with multiple versions. However, against my better judgment, the
decision was made to have the users continue to share the FE. There were,
and continue to be, occasional corruptions, but I believe that is due, in
large part, to an extremely stable network. We have a very large and skilled
network team and they maintain one of the most stable networks I have ever
seen. At another company I worked for, where the FE was shared, we
experienced corruptions on a daily basis.

That's all anecdotal evidence but I continue to believe that any connection
issues with a network will cause corruption in Access databases.

--
Lynn Trapp
MS Access MVP
www.ltcomputerdesigns.com
Access Security: www.ltcomputerdesigns.com/Security.htm
Jeff Conrad's Access Junkie List:
http://home.bendbroadband.com/conradsystems/accessjunkie.html
 
Lynn Trapp said:
Keith,
When I first started working for my current company they had, literally,
thousands of Access databases that were not even split. Users were sharing
the same .mdb file with all the data and user interface. In fact, until I
got here, there were very few who even knew of the concept of a split
database. Because we were going through a conversion process -- from A95
to A2K -- I essentially mandated splitting the databases, so that they
could be used with multiple versions. However, against my better judgment,
the decision was made to have the users continue to share the FE. There
were, and continue to be, occasional corruptions, but I believe that is
due, in large part, to an extremely stable network. We have a very large
and skilled network team and they maintain one of the most stable networks
I have ever seen. At another company I worked for, where the FE was
shared, we experienced corruptions on a daily basis.

That's all anecdotal evidence but I continue to believe that any
connection issues with a network will cause corruption in Access
databases.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for your response Lynn.
 
Back
Top