Database Split and Linked Table

[jeannette_rivera]

Hi all:

I have a database created to be small but it grew and I used the Database
Splitter and Linked Table Manager. It works perfectly in the PC it is
install but, other PC's have a shurtcut to this database. They can open and
use the db but in some forms there are combo boxes looking to tables and when
the other users try to look at those fields, anything shows.

Can you please help me fix this in the other machines? Should I run the
linked table manager in all the PCs? Do I need to do something special every
time there is an update to the forms or the tables in all the pc having the
shortcut?

I'm asking because usually I work the changes from home and then copy the
new database in the same folder with the same name to avoid redo of the
shortcut.

Greatly appreciate your help.

 

[Jerry Whittle]

The Linked Table Manager only needs to be run once. The other users need
their own copy of the new FE database and they all should be linked to the
same BE .mdb file.

If you make a change to the FE, you need to give a copy to all users.

 

[jeannette_rivera]

But, if I made changes and install the new one in a server. It has the same
name and target as the original. The users only have a shortcut to the FE
database not a copy in their machines. This is what they have and they were
working OK before the split but now they can't see the info on the combo
boxes attach to a table that's in the BE.

Will appreciate your help.

Jeannette

 

[Jerry Whittle]

Each user should have a copy of the FE on their machine. That should increase
performance. Also it might solve the problem you are having.

 

[jeannette_rivera]

I really appreciate you're trying to help with this thing but having a copy
of the FE on each machine didn't help me at this point. Just because the FE
is changing so quickly, it will be harder or even imposible to keet all the
machines updated always. The FE is used by several machines in different
branches. By puting the FE in the server help me to have all the machines
updated at the same time.

I know what we want to do is not always the same way to do things, specially
when I don't have enough experience programming but still think there should
be a way to have this fix without putting a copy on each pc. To avoid this
is why we use servers and networking.

Please, still need your help to have this solved.

 

[Douglas J. Steele]

Take a look at the Auto FE Updater Tony Toews has (for free) at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/autofe.htm

Believe us when we tell you that it is far superior for each user to have
his/her own copy of the front-end on his/her hard drive.

 

[Bob Hughes]

Take a look at the Auto FE Updater Tony Toews has (for free) at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/autofe.htm

Believe us when we tell you that it is far superior for each user to
have his/her own copy of the front-end on his/her hard drive.

It may be the best way to run a seperate copy of the FE on each individuals
computer but I have been running several DB's with both the FE & BE on the
main servers for a number of years without any major problems. These are
small DB's with only 3 - 10 users. This is not my choice, but the company
prefers it this way and who am I to knock success.

And it makes it real easy for me to update programs from home.

If something breaks I can always say I told you so

Bob

 

[Chris Mills]

It may be the best way to run a seperate copy of the FE on each individuals

computer but I have been running several DB's with both the FE & BE on the
main servers for a number of years without any major problems.

Interesting point. So did I on one smallish site "just for the hell of it" and
I had no major problems either. My thinking was "if I don't try it I don't
know!", also for a similar reason to Jeanette that the program was initially
changing quite often (in itself, a bad practise!<g>)

Nevertheless, there are very sound reasons for Doug's advice. All I can say is
that, certainly an FE can be run on a server, but it is "best" to run it on
each client PC. For example, it will run "faster" / in a given case however
it might very well be "fast enough" anyway. Though it's more likely that
developers want to do everything they can to improve speed, reliability, etc,
because those are often ("usually?")("nearly always?") major issues with
Access.

All of which just means, I agree it's "best" have separate FE's! Perhaps an
analogy might be, I s'pose my car might run for quite some considerable time
even if I don't give it the proper service! (I do, by the way) <forget
that-weird analogy>

Some procedures (such as situations which require temporary tables, an import
perhaps) will not work the same (or as easily or reliably) if everyone is
using the same FE.

It is NOT difficult (in my opinion) to keep separate FE's updated. Even before
Tony Toews' well-received updater (or anyway), I had version checking on
startup between FE and a version number held in the BE. That way, I could
force users to upgrade if their FE was "forgotten about", they restored from
an old backup, got hold of an older CD, whatever. All these things happen!
Besides, sometimes an upgrade to a product also includes changes to a BE,
making it incompatible with older FE's, and this is not too difficult to
handle with a reasonable scheme and separate FE's either. Sort it out once,
and you can use the same "proper" scheme for all subsequent programs you
write!


I can't really believe another comment of yours, Bob. I've installed software
on some reasonably large sites, and I tell THEM how my software installs not
vice versa. Separate FE's does not appear to me to be an issue which affects a
given corporations security policies or whatever, or in any case if their
policy conflicts with very sound Access advice. I am required to keep my
software running, and I can only do that if they take my advice (whatever it
may be <g>).

Chris

 

[Chris Mills]

They can open and

use the db but in some forms there are combo boxes looking to tables and when
the other users try to look at those fields, anything shows.

This sounds like the main reason for your post, and combined vs separate FE
may be only a related issue.

Not only is it normal to have a separate FE on each PC, but in every case I
know of Access itself is installed separately on each user's PC (whichever FE
scheme you use). I cannot imagine anyone actually using MSAccess.exe over a
network (like, how would you install or uninstall it?)

The problem is to find out what is different between a user which works and a
user which doesn't work. You could very well have different versions of Access
on different PC's (Office Service Packs would amount to a different version of
Access). Or, for all I know, you may think there is only one FE on a server,
but there could be an older FE version you stuck in a backup folder which
someone is picking up, or they copied-over an FE to their own PC and didn't
tell you. If you have no direct way of determining what software versions are
being run (Access, FE, possibly libraries which might get updated by other
installed s/w) then how can you start to tell what's going on?

All these disasters happen. I'm an Expert! (on disasters)

Another disaster is to believe when any client tells you they did something.
They are being honest of course (within their recollection) but you have to
have some way to verify it. Perhaps ask some questions about some unrelated
new features of a supposedly updated FE?
(anyway unrelated questions give you time to think <g>)

Chris

 

[Tony Toews]

All these disasters happen. I'm an Expert! (on disasters)

(anyway unrelated questions give you time to think <g>)

<guffaw> Well said!

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm