[AccessD] An Easy Fix . . .

Is this another example of why I find switchboards a PITA. I never use the
stupid things myself. I prefer to create my own "opening form" with all the
buttons on it put there by me, so I know (at least in theory) what the
stupid code behind the form is doing.

Lambert

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Charlotte Foust [SMTP:cfoust at infostatsystems.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:39 AM
> To:	Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject:	RE: [AccessD] An Easy Fix . . .
> 
> If this was a wizard-created switchboard, you would be better off
> renaming Switchboard Items, saving the code to text from the existing
> switchboard, and deleting the switchboard form.  Then if you start the
> switchboard manager, it will discover you have no switchboard and create
> a new one.  If you then delete the newly created Switchboard Items table
> and rename the old one back to Switchboard Items, you'll have a working
> switchboard with current code.  At that point, you can add back any
> specializations you made in the old switchboard, assuming you still need
> them.
> 
> Charlotte Foust
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Waters [mailto:dwaters at usinternet.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:39 AM
> To: Database Advisors
> Subject: [AccessD] An Easy Fix . . .
> 
> 
> I recently installed an app at a client's site.  For some reason, my
> switchboard form triggered an error when the startup form tried to open
> it on a user's PC.  I had never had this error before on any other PC.
> For a short story the fix was as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> On the switchboard form: comment out all code, compile, save, and exit
> access.  Then reopen, uncomment all code, compile, and save.
> 
>  
> 
> After that the error went away, and the front end was reduced in size.
> 
>  
> 
> This particular switchboard form was originally created in A95, upgraded
> to A97, is now in AXP, and had many revisions along the way.  My guess
> is that somehow there was 'old code' attached to the form.  When the
> code was commented out and the database compiled, the 'old code' was
> eliminated.  I could watch the compile 'progress bar' and it took longer
> than usual after the initial uncommenting.
> 
>  
> 
> This was certainly an easy fix.  Since I hadn't seen this before I
> thought I would pass it along to this group.
> 
>  
> 
> Dan Waters
> 
> Quality Process Solutions
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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