John W. Colby
jcolby at ColbyConsulting.com
Mon Apr 28 06:37:45 CDT 2003
I just have a batch file that the user clicks on to open the fe. It copies the FE regardless if there is a change. new copy every day. John W. Colby Colby Consulting www.ColbyConsulting.com -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Erwin Craps Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:59 AM To: 'accessd at databaseadvisors.com' Subject: RE: [Accessd] FE/BE on server vs FE on workstation/BE on server? Easy updates.... IF you put a FE on each pc, you need a mechanisme to check if an update is available on the server and copy it localy.... But I do advise it. Since MSA2K I had a whole lot of locking problems even with 2 or 3 simultaneous users when only using 1 FE on the server. Having local copies solved that. Those locking problems I never had with the same app in MSA97... Erwin -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Drew Wutka [mailto:DWUTKA at marlow.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 25 april 2003 7:56 Aan: 'accessd at databaseadvisors.com' Onderwerp: RE: [Accessd] FE/BE on server vs FE on workstation/BE on server? So tell me, other then the only obvious advantage I can think of, what earthly advantage is there in having a FE in the same network location as a BE? The only advantage I can think of is that it allows for slightly easier modification of the FE, since a new copy can be put into place, without having to worry about the data in the BE. However that really isn't an issue with 97, because 97 allows for modification of practically anything, as long as it's not in use (not the whole database). Drew -----Original Message----- From: Gustav Brock [mailto:gustav at cactus.dk] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 3:38 AM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [Accessd] FE/BE on server vs FE on workstation/BE on server? Hi Drew > eh? eh?? You're normally not that dense - or have you again being working all night ... what I mean is, of course, that putting the FE on the server has nothing to do with not splitting the database. If you take your precautions and the FE is nice and doesn't write to itself it can be perfectly safe to run it this way. /gustav >> Putting the FE on the server is just like not splitting the FE to >> begin with. That's about it, in a nutshell. > Ahh ... if so it doesn't fit in that nutshell. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com ----------------------------------------------------- eMailBoss puts you in command of your email. Get your copy today at http://www.eMailBoss.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3096 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://databaseadvisors.com/pipermail/accessd/attachments/20030428/65927088/attachment-0001.bin>