[AccessD] ADP vs. MDB for SQL 2000

I will try to find it, thanks.

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
Mwp.Reid at Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:05 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] ADP vs. MDB for SQL 2000


Chris

Susan and I did an article for someone on this subject. I cant rememebr who
but am sure Susan has a link to it.

Martin


Quoting Chris Mackin <chris at denverdb.com>:

> William,
>
> Thank you, I will pass this along to the client, unfortunatley he of
> course
> has no idea what Jet is but this does provide a good argument that's
> not
> just my word.  And yes, the other developer has tried an .adp and
> didn't
> like it and doesn't want to learn how to use them properly, but he does
> know
> someone in the company :(.
>
> Thanks,
> 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 William
> Hindman
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] ADP vs. MDB for SQL 2000
>
>
>
http://www.informit.com/isapi/product_id~%7B5B9C9F4C-B894-4969-BAF5-65609CEC
>
4982%7D/element_id~%7BE30B99EB-5B40-4D9D-8309-C1CC025D8D28%7D/st~%7BC301AE08
> -6EF7-4244-BA76-9EF357EB4ACF%7D/content/articlex.asp
>
> ...the fundamentals are that an mdb requires JET be loaded and that
> JET
> becomes the interface with SQL Server ...and you are thus stuck with
> JET's
> inherent weaknesses while gaining almost none of SQL Server's
> strengths
> ...an adp does not load JET and interfaces with SQL Server directly
> ...unless there is a critical requirement for local tables, I can't
> think of
> a reason to use an mdb in a SQL Server environment ...other than the
> developer doesn't understand adps and doesn't want to ...which
> certainly
> isn't a client reason for doing so.
>
> ...and even in the case of a critical requirement for local tables,
> Charlotte (I think) just pointed out an XML solution for that using
> adps.
> HTH :)
>
> William Hindman
> "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -
> ask
> what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask
> not
> what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the
> freedom of
> man." John F. Kennedy, 1961
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Mackin" <chris at denverdb.com>
> To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:12 PM
> Subject: [AccessD] ADP vs. MDB for SQL 2000
>
>
> > 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)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris Mackin
> > www.denverdb.com
> > Denver Database Consulting, LLC
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com