adp strengths?

[bkrasnof]

Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
quickly.

I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
was doing it wrong.

I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.

Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?

thanks,
Bruce

 

[David Portas]

Hi, I have a SQL 2005 database that I wanted to quickly deploy a
front-end to. I was happily surprised that Access 2003 seems to be a
great RAD tool for SQL when using ADP. I am a .net programmer but I
wasn't looking forward to creating a new application from scratch so
quickly.

I've read various opinion of ADP projects. I loved how I could define
my relationships and indexes in SQL 2005 and the Access ADP project
understood them when defining forms/reports. But some people say to
use linked tables instead, but it seemed like I'd have to move the
relationship definitions to Access, which I didn't like, but maybe I
was doing it wrong.

I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going
away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.

Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?

thanks,
Bruce

The best way to build SQL Server applications is to use SQL stored
procedures to perform all your data access. That is the easiest way to
create applications that are scalable, supportable, secure and exploit
SQL Server to its full potential.

If you adopt the use of stored procedures in your SQL applications then
it may not make too much difference what application environment method
you choose. That's another advantage of procs - you can more easily
leverage multiple development environments.

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

 

[Norman Yuan]

While APD seems still supported by Access2007, but certainly there isn't
anything new from Access2003 and older.There is even no word that with
Access2007's ADP file, user can create/modify SQL Server2005's server
objects (table/view/SP...) or not. I guess it is because of lack of
interests in ADP. MS Access team itself recommends using Access *.mdb linked
table as FE of SQL Server2005, instead of ADP. To me, ADP seems phasing out.
So, if you expect your app would last long, choosing *.mdb FE might be safer
than *.adp. With linked table, you do not have to move relationship to
Access. The tables are still on the SQL Server and relationships between
tables are still there to keep data integrity.

I liked ADP until SQL Server2005 released when ADP cannot manipulate SQL
Server objects anymore. It has all Access RAD advantages and is the quickest
tool to put a data-centric app together (only if you are experienced in
Access programming. It is so different from .NET/generic VB coding, because
of lots of Access specific form/control/code style). It is also best report
tool. However, you need Access installed on user's computer, or license
Access Developer Extension yourself (is it still there for Access2007?).

If I have broader user base for this app, I'd bet on .NET to make it safer
(as long as MS is there). If it is small scale, low budget, or not long life
expectancy app, ADP (or MDB) might be the choice.

 

[aaron.kempf]

it's not because lack of interest

there are still hundreds and thousands of people sitting around;
writing RPG forms to an AS400.

it is the exact same market.

the MS Access team doesn't reccomend using MDB files.

when MS comes out and makes a formal announcement about it is when you
can pull tihs he-said; she-said bullshit

my uncle golfs with the vice president in charge of the office
division; and he says that MDB are obsolete; and completely being
phased out.

ADP are the best feature to ever come out of Redmond.

Of course Access 2007 is going to update tables; sprocs and views in
sql 2005.

of course it is.

I use Access 2003 against SQL 2005 all the time. it works QUITE well.

i highly reccomend that combination.

-Aaron

 

[Vadim Rapp]

I also read the Access 2007 blog and it sounds like ADP isn't going

away, I don't want to use ADP for creating anything in the schema, just
as a front-end RAD tool and reporting tool.

Is ADP feasible for what I'm doing for the next couple of years?

Yes; but on longer term, it looks like ms is going to kill it.

Vadim Rapp

 

[aaron.kempf]

look ASSHOLE

they're killing MDB and ADP.

get your story straight and speak the truth.
both formats are going to be replaced by ACCDB format.

RIGHT?

so who the **** do you think that you are; talking shit like this
Vadim?

why dont you go back to india and spread lies over there...

jerk

i mean seriously. how are they 'killing adp but not killing mdb in the
next version'?