Two initial databases or database splitting procedure

[yamefui]

Hello,

I'm reading the MS Access 2003 Bible by Prague/Irwin and it appears that
they recommend using, from the start, two different databases, one to hold
the tables (back end) and the other for objects (front end). I'd prefer not
to split and instead have two databases to link manually. I work in a one
server environment with 8 current users who will be accessing a simple
contacts database to input their own contacts on a regular basis.

1. Has experience proven one method to be more useful or effective than the
other?
2. If creating two dbases from the start instead of splitting, does the
exact same methodology as the automated splitting procedure apply as detailed
below:

"The back end (tables) is usually placed in a shared folder on the network
and is linked to the front end file. The front end file contains all of the
forms, queries, reports, macros, modules, and links to data access pages. The
front end file is distributed to individual users for their workstations."

Thank you.

 

[Rick Brandt]

Hello,

I'm reading the MS Access 2003 Bible by Prague/Irwin and it appears that
they recommend using, from the start, two different databases, one to hold
the tables (back end) and the other for objects (front end). I'd prefer not
to split and instead have two databases to link manually. I work in a one
server environment with 8 current users who will be accessing a simple
contacts database to input their own contacts on a regular basis.

1. Has experience proven one method to be more useful or effective than the
other?
2. If creating two dbases from the start instead of splitting, does the
exact same methodology as the automated splitting procedure apply as detailed
below:

"The back end (tables) is usually placed in a shared folder on the network
and is linked to the front end file. The front end file contains all of the
forms, queries, reports, macros, modules, and links to data access pages. The
front end file is distributed to individual users for their workstations."

There is no difference other than the timing. My opinion is that if you know
you are going to split then you might as well start out with two files.

The one issue that I can think of is that splitting later AND using the Splitter
Wizard on a file that has User Level Security on it will result in a back end
file that is not secure.

 

[yamefui]

Thank you Rick.

I think you answered a follow up question for me but I'll ask:

If a database has been built and is password protected as well as assigned
User Level Security, what happens if it is manually split later (and does
using the Splitter wizzard complicate the issue substantially - you note
below a potential security issue but I'm not sure to what extent you mean)?

Do the current security levels and password create any issues or are they
maintained for both the front end and back end? Thank you. Is there a current
link that you can provide that discusses this?

 

[Rick Brandt]

Thank you Rick.

I think you answered a follow up question for me but I'll ask:

If a database has been built and is password protected as well as assigned
User Level Security, what happens if it is manually split later (and does
using the Splitter wizzard complicate the issue substantially - you note
below a potential security issue but I'm not sure to what extent you mean)?

Do the current security levels and password create any issues or are they
maintained for both the front end and back end? Thank you. Is there a current
link that you can provide that discusses this?

First off the file password is so easily defeated that almost no one bothers
with it. User Level Security (while hackable) is so much more robust that if
you set that up there really is nothing extra gained by using the file password.

The issue with ULS and the splitter is that the splitter wizard results in a
data file that has no security at all. On a file with security you are better
off just splitting manually by copying the file. Then your security is
maintained on the data file.