[AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook

As you know very well, I didn't say you couldn't have libraries in
Access, I said they were different from libraries in .Net.  I think
you're just trying to keep an argument alive, since you seem to be
enjoying yourself enormously. ;-<

No, John, Code Librarian is a repository, not a library, so you *can't*
have a library in it.  You can store stuff there but you can't call it.
You *have* to copy and paste if you want to use the code, but there's no
reason you can't put that code into a defined library app and stamp it
with the Colby seal of approval.  I personally don't want to drag all
the good, bad and awful example code in my repository around in my apps
or libraries, but it's very useful to know what *doesn't* work as well
as what does, when I'm building something new.  This is what's know as
"development", and interesting concept but not much used by those who
already have everything built!!  <razz>

Charlotte Foust
   

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of JWColby
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:40 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook

ROTFL. 

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS.

Worked didn't it?

8~0

>The difference is that libraries in managed code are compiled into a
dll.
Once that happens, they are no longer available to be messed with by the
curious, and they are true libraries, as opposed to mdbs with a
different name and a breakable reference in the tools menu.

Charlotte, MDAs / MDEs are all we have in Access.  To say that they are
not a library because they can't be compiled into a DLL is simply not
true.  To say that they aren't a library because they can be messed with
or that the reference can be broken also isn't true.  A library is
nothing more than a group of code maintained on one place and
distributed for use.  How you do the distribution has nothing whatsoever
to do with the concept of single point maintenance of the source code.
THAT is what makes a library.  

You can have a library in something like Code Librarian.  What you CAN'T
do is claim that you are using a library if you distribute the library
by cutting and pasting pieces from it directly into the application.  As
soon as you do that you are no longer using a library, you are building
an application with all of its code embedded in it.  People do that all
the time, and in a small shop where there is only one application then
there is absolutely no point in a library.  The application IS the
library and the fix is done at a single place, in the application (which
is the library).
No foul, no harm done.  As soon as you cut and paste code from that
application into another application... you should be using a library,
for BOTH applications, with all the shared code in the library.

And that, as they say, is that.

I made a comment in one of the posts that "others have also talked about
cutting and pasting".  I get the feeling that you thought I was poking a
stick at you.  I wasn't, but poking a stick at you is definitely fun.

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 Charlotte
Foust
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:16 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook

The difference is that libraries in managed code are compiled into a
dll.
Once that happens, they are no longer available to be messed with by the
curious, and they are true libraries, as opposed to mdbs with a
different name and a breakable reference in the tools menu.

You are willfully misinterpreting what I said in order to prove your
point, but I've totally lost track of what the point was!  I'm not
arguing that libraries are bad, so why are you arguing with me and what
am I supposed to give up on??

Charlotte Foust 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of JWColby
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:56 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook

Charlotte, 

A library is a group of code, the source stored (and more importantly
MAINTAINED) in one location but used in more than one place.  Tell me
how that is different?

There is no foul here.  Access is the ONLY Office application that
allows libraries but they are indeed libraries.  A group of code, stored
and maintained in one location but used in more than one place.  Because
they are stored in one location, you fix a bug one time, at that stored
location, and then distribute the fix version to the other locations
where the code is used.

Now I understand that with a versioning system you can get into issues
there but that is an intentional step that you take because you have a
reason to have more than one branch of the code.

And if an Access library (which they are called libraries inside of our
programming environment) is not a library, how much more "not a library"
is a "cut and paste" exercise?

I am discussing a simple concept here, which you KNOW is "correct".  I
did not make this up, I have no vested interest in you or anyone else
using it.
It is a concept taught and used throughout the industry.

C'mon Charlotte, give it up.

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 Charlotte
Foust
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:38 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook

FOUL!  Libraries in managed code aren't anything like Access libraries
and you know it!  Grrrr

Charlotte Foust 

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