David McAfee
davidmcafee at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 11:39:26 CDT 2010
And it seems they are not supporting SDFs in the new WM7, at least not in the initial release. It looks like they want to force XML tables onto developers. I, like you, also developed CE apps using cdb files, then had to switch to SDFs when MS went that route. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Boogie Loogie <boogieloogie at gmail.com> wrote: > <delurk> > > I use .net and SQL Server / SQL Server Express for all database apps. I > develop Windows Mobile apps and then process the .sdf on the desktop. I > would have stayed with Access but the day Micro$oft stop support for Pocket > Access was the day I switched. They had a good thing going and then it was > gone. > > For old apps that I wrote in Access I had to get clients to purchase > KaioneSync to make up for the shortcomings in the latest versions of > ActiveSync and Windows Mobile because they did not want the wheel > reinvented. M$ steps forward were steps backwards for Mobile - Access > develop IMO. > > :L > > </delurk> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brad Marks <BradM at blackforestltd.com>wrote: > >> All, >> >> Compared to most of you, I am a relative newcomer to the world of >> Access. >> >> Over the past few months, I have noticed a number of references to the >> Bound/Unbound debate. It sounds like this was a really hotly contested >> issue at one time and that now people almost joke about it. >> >> For us newcomers, it would be nice if someone could explain this issue >> at a high level and perhaps spell out the major pros and cons of each >> side of the debate. >> >> It is not my intent to start a Web-war, I would just like to better >> understand what is going on here. >> >> Thanks, >> Brad >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Drew Wutka >> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:53 PM >> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server Express - true skinny >> >> Exactly. Which is part of the premise of the bound/unbound debate. >> With unbound forms, where data is written in a split second chunk, the >> stability of much higher user volume goes up tremendously! >> >> Drew >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman >> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:46 PM >> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SQL Server Express - true skinny >> >> Dan, >> >> That is more or less true, but the real bottle neck with a JET based DB >> has >> never been .LDB file operations. >> >> With JET, all processing is on the client side. The server acts as >> nothing >> more then a file share. >> >> The trick with keeping a connection open to the BE avoids the repeated >> closing/opening of the LDB and DB files and all the associated overhead >> with >> removing/adding an active user under JET. Some apps benefit from that, >> other not because they already maintain a connection one way or another. >> The problem can be further compounded if the server has OPLOCKS on >> (which >> allows client side caching of files). JET doesn't need this as the >> cache is >> already on the client side. So it's simply a wasted effort on the >> servers >> part. And by default, OPLOCKs is enabled on Windows servers. >> >> The real restriction of JET is just one of stability. With no server >> side >> process to perform a rollback if a disconnect occurs, anytime that >> happens >> in the middle of write operations your fair game for corruption. So by >> the >> time you get past 30 or 40 stations, it's just hard to keep the >> environment >> stable. >> >> To prove that point, you can easily run a read-only/reporting JET based >> app >> with 200+ users without issues. >> >> It's not an issue of performance, but one of stability. >> >> Jim. >> The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the >> person or entity >> to which it is addressed and may contain II-VI Proprietary and/or II-VI >> Business >> Sensitive material. If you are not the intended recipient, please >> contact the sender >> immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic >> or hard copy. >> You are notified that any review, retransmission, copying, disclosure, >> dissemination, >> or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this >> information by persons >> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >