Jim Lawrence
accessd at shaw.ca
Wed Jan 31 16:49:58 CST 2007
Thanks Marty... I will review this and maybe have a few questions. Jim -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of MartyConnelly Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:40 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Paean to the Access Development Team Here is a basic starter article It requires either Visual Studio 2005 Team or Enterprise version, I think, along with .Net Framework 2.0. This gets you access to the ComClass template. Call Into The .NET Framework From Existing Visual Basic 6.0 Apps http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/05/WrapItUp/default.aspx I have this partially written up to use only VB.Net Express and Access 2003 or 2007. Let me check it out and you can be a guinea pig to test it out to see if I have missed anything. Jim Lawrence wrote: >Hi Marty: > >What steps would be required to accomplish this? Would you have any samples >pieces that might help in creating such an environment? > >TIA >Jim > >-----Original Message----- >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of MartyConnelly >Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:40 PM >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >Subject: Re: [AccessD] Paean to the Access Development Team > >One thing you can do is call VB.Net or C## framework code > from Access via a COM class wrapper creating a tlb and dll. > >Not that difficult if you need to merge the two code bases as some >things are easier >and quicker to write in dotNet like Web Services and xml reader classes > >Some standalone .exe files still required a runtime install with VB6 and >VB.Net >requires the dotNet Framework installed. > > >artful at rogers.com wrote: > > > >>In the beginning were Relational Databases -- a valiant attempt by the late >> >> >and lamented Dr. Edgar (Ted) Codd. His set-based theories changed the >database world. I wish he had lived 20 more years, so he could address the >new issues. (He did try, late in life, to address the OODB issues, but >didn't survive long enough to complete his arguments.) > > >>Yes, Dr. Codd rationalized the world of databases as viewed from set >> >> >theory. But the most important and radical of Dr. Codd's propositions was >that statement X ought to work in implementations Y and Z. > > >>Vendors and their marketing staff view the world differently. Thus they >> >> >foisted upon Dr. Codd's universal language the Language Extension. And the >Language Extensions proliferated, on grounds similar to brand-name crack or >heroin dealers in Manhattan. > > >>The new mantra: "Adhere to the standards, but toss in a few really >> >> >addictive commands that are way cool and extend the language in proprietary >ways." > > >>Dr. Codd's rules were thus undermined by the capitalist system, at every >> >> >possible step. "Offer tempting extensions that force or at least coerce >total buy-in." Make it difficult or impossible to port code-X from >implementation Y to implementation Z. To the extent that you buy in, you are >our captive market. > > >>Any reasonable (i.e. non-marketing) person would agree that this approach >> >> >totally violates everything Dr. Codd's achievements stood for. As an IBM >Fellow, Dr. Codd was above and beyond the fray of market competition. He >thought only of the big picture. Smaller minds plundered his ideas and the >result is an array of variants upon commands that ought to have been >standard across all implementations. > > >>The ISO SQL projects notwithstanding, virtually every vendor persists in >> >> >redefining or extending the language in proprietary ways. I have a tiny >book published by O'Reilly and written by Jonathan Gennick, which is a >Prince Valiant attempt to sort all this out and provide a Rosetta Stone. >Thank you, Sir Jonathan! You have saved those cross-implementation readers >such as I hundreds or even thousands of hours of investigative time. To be >objective, there are one or two subjects you haven't covered, but you are >the Valiant of the SQL Wars! > > >>I began in dBASE not SQL (and expect that many readers will immediately >> >> >slight me for my origins), but even back then the strategic path was the >same. Wayne Ratliff and Jeb Long invented a language based on JPL-DIS. It >was called Vulcan, but after one ad in Byte magazine they discovered that >Harris Computing owned the name. Enter Hal Pollock, a marketing genious. He >suggested the name dBASE II, on the grounds that no one would buy dBASE 1.0. >He also created the legendary "bilge pump" ad. dBASE II took over the CP/M >and then DOS world by storm. A couple of years later, a vastly superior >product called KnowledgeMan came along, but could not compete against >Pollock's brilliant marketing of dBASE II. > > >>Despite numerous interanl arguments, Ashton-Tate refused to release a >> >> >compiler, and committed seppukku. A couple of frustrated, not to mention >opportunity-sensitive, A-T employees, met in a restaurant called Nantucket, >and to conceive and devise a compiler for dBASE. The result was Clipper, >from Nantucket Software. > > >>I bought into Nantucket big-time (not in shares but in development hours). >> >> >I wrote two books about Clipper, and I like to pretend that I helped lead >the way for these folks into O-O programming, but in reality I borrowed >lessons learned from playing with SmallTalk and other O-O languages. > > >>The point is, Brian and Rich and Barry realized that the way to capture the >> >> >market is to provide 98% compatibility with dBASE syntax, but also offer >totally addictive extensions, which delivered much more power but also >trapped the developer into Clipper. The Clipper code would not readily port >to FoxPro or dbCompiler and most certainly not into dBASE. So, to the extent >that one bought in to the extensions -- and I bought in, big time, because >they were so powerful -- one excluded porting the code to other variants of >dBASE. > > >>Jump-cut to the SQL world. Oracle releases Java extensions. MS releases >> >> >.NET extensions. Sybase struggles to tread water (not a slight on their team >-- they are underfunded and carry the albatross of PowerBuilder >compatibility, etc.) and Borland tries to find a way to fit. Later, Gupta >and Clarion and a dozen others. The market is a vicious place. > > >>The world is not flat, and here is an interesting example. Although I know >> >> >nothing about MS internal development and even less about the development >hierarchy, what I can deduce from outside is that the MS-Access team is seen >as a wart, if not a threat, to the marketing of all the .NET stuff. This, in >my view, is most unfortunate. Admittedly, there are things that an Access >expert cannot implement, but that covers the 20% of the people who insist >upon a BMW or better. The "Chevrolet" set would be most pleased to learn >that an Access developer can deliver a functional application for >approximately 1/10 the cost of the equivalent app developed in .NET. > > >>The C# and VB.NET developers don't like to acknowledge this, nor does >> >> >Microsoft. But facts are facts. If you need to deliver a shrink-wrapped >package that depends on nothing (a laughable concept in itself, but let's >let that pass), then C# or VB.NET are the languages of choice. But if you >need to deliver something quickly and easily changed in the light of revised >requirements, then I vote Access as the best available platform. There is no >problem in directly connecting it to the SQL Server database of choice. >Granted, an Access developer cannot deliver an executable. This distinction >matters, apparently, to those who would bill you 10 times as much for an >equivalent project. > > >>I cannot understand why Microsoft continues (over the past decade at least) >> >> >to slight the achievements possible in Access. This particular newsgroup is >ALL about what can be done in Access. I can cite numerous developers here >who have bolstered my argument, but I will cite only a few and hope those >whose contributions I didn't cite will forgive me): > > >>Bartow, Brock, Connelly, Carbonell, Colby, Der, Enright, Fields, Foust, >> >> >Harkins, Kjos, Hindman, Lacey, Lawrence, Matte, Mattys, McLachlan, Reid, >Salakhetitov, Skolits, Smolin, Tapia, Tejpal, Williamson, Wutka. > > >>I wish all the best to MS-Access development team, and I hope that one or >> >> >two or three of said team occasionally visits our group, to learn how much >we appreciate their efforts, and to know that we understand what challenges >they face. All the marketing $ focus on .NET (which is very cool - no slight >on that team intended) but the Access team delivers top-quality stuff in >spite of its underfunding. > > >>Hats off to the Access development team. Without you, many of us would be >> >> >in serious financial trouble. Thanks to you, we can make a living. You give >us the tools and we discover ingenious ways to use them. > > >>My $.02. >> >>Arthur Fuller >>Technical Writer, Data Modeler, SQL Sensei >>Artful Databases Organization >>www.artfulsoftware.com >> >> >> >> > > > -- Marty Connelly Victoria, B.C. Canada -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com