Is it possible only backup Tables!

D

David W. Fenton

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
:
splitting is not reccomended.

Splitting is depecrated.
single connection to sql server- where all data SHOUD belong is a
much much simpler architecture.
Click to expand...

And it's a SPLIT architecture, in that your application is in a
front-end file:
FILE, NEW, Project (Existing Data)
Click to expand...

.... an ADP file in this case, and your data is in a back end
separate from the application file (in this case SQL Server, since
that's the only back end database engine that an ADP can be used
with).

So, splitting is not only not deprecated, IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY
YOU, in the same post where you say it's not recommended.

When you recommend it, you're giving good advice.

When you're deprecating it, you're being your usual moronic self,
posting crap that nobody should pay attention to.

I must say it's quite impressive that you managed to do both things
within the same post.
anything else is a waste of time
Click to expand...

Reading your posts is a waste of time.

With regard to users of a Jet data store and splitting:

Every Access application with more than one user should be split. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
forms/reports from someone else should be split, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be split. NO EXCEPTIONS.
 
A

a a r o n . k e m p f

Every Access application with more than one user should be upsized. NO
EXCEPTIONS.

Every Access application where the user needs to get updates to the
QUERIES from someone else should be UPSIZED, even if it has only
one user. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Every replicated Access app should be UPSIZED. NO EXCEPTIONS.
 
A

a a r o n . k e m p f

splitting is unmanageable, because Microsoft doesn't have the idea to
'make the linked table manager support sql passthrough queries'.

if MS made Jet easier, it might make sense in some situations.
if MS made Jet more reliable, it might make sense in some situations.
if MS made Jet faster, it might make sense in some situations.
if MS made Jet development easier than SQL Server, it might make sense
in some situations.(things like a lack of 'query analyzer for jet' is
a major shortcoming, IMHO)
 
A

a a r o n . k e m p f

and I just think that it's SO funny.. that you think that it
'supporting SQL Server is a BAD thing'.

Jet fucking sucks balls dude.
SQL Server works, it has a future and a roadmap and 100 times more
power than Jet.

So do you want to tie yourself to a dead database; or to the worlds
fastest growing, most popular database, aka SQL SERVER
 
Top