[AccessD] ADP vs. MDB for SQL 2000

The other developer uses local tables in the .mdb's (I've discussed this
issue with him at the local Access Users Group).  Personally I see no reason
for these tables as they only store info related to user preferences, so all
of the real data for the system is going to be SQL 2000, custom menu options
that the user selects are going to be in local tables (Why not just store
them in SQL along with a column for the user name?).  Basically if they go
with .mdb I don't get the job, if they go with .adp I do so I'm trying to
srgue the .adp side as strongly as possible.

Chris Mackin
www.denverdb.com
Denver Database Consulting, LLC


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-admin at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-admin at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Susan Harkins
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 10:37 AM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: Re: [AccessD] ADP vs. MDB for SQL 2000


Chris, the back-end will be in SQL Server regardless? Let him talk to
Martin -- he'll straighten this guy out. :) Seriously.

If the above isn't the case and the mdb would be inclusive of Access tables,
we probably don't have enough information to really discern which is the
best solution. Although, I think people that already have SQL Server tend to
go that route regardless, unless they're creating a smaller application and
just don't want to put the development and administrative resources into the
project.

Susan H.


> I am trying to convince a client that's rebuilding a DOS based system with
> SQL Server 2000 and Access XP that the .adp format is superior to the .mdb
> format for working with SQL Server back ends.  Does anyone have any
articles
> or any "objective" materials that I could show to them? (Another developer
> has them convinced that the .mdb format is the way to go)


_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com