[AccessD] Autonumber when?

jwcolby jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Wed Apr 6 16:20:08 CDT 2011


;)

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 4/6/2011 4:58 PM, David McAfee wrote:
> Perfect time to rewrite it for "unbound">:P
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:38 PM, jwcolby<jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>  wrote:
>
>> I hear you Ken.
>>
>> I have written a framework for MDB BEs.  It is very large, and has tons of
>> functionality, and was never intended to run against SQL Server simply
>> because nobody was using that back when I wrote it.
>>
>> Now I am trying to use it for a SQL Server back end.  It is not just a
>> simple case of "write a library for this and a library for that.
>>   Additionally I need it to work where this table (or set of tables) is kept
>> in an MDB and that one is moved to SQL.
>>
>> I write frameworks.  The framework does a ton of stuff which is handled
>> automatically.  It handles the not in list and the dbl click of combos for
>> example.  The dbl click of a combo opens a form and moves to the record that
>> the combo is displaying.  Classes instantiate classes which instantiate
>> classes.
>>
>> I am just not sure that "writing separate libs" is a viable option.  It
>> would mean a complete rewrite of the framework and then a complete rewrite
>> of the FE.
>>
>> John W. Colby
>> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/2011 4:13 PM, Kenneth Ismert wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> jwcolby
>>>> ...
>>>> The code needs to work whether going to an MDB or SQL BE.  The code works
>>>> fine for an MDB BE but fails for a SQL BE.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> This is probably what you are trying to avoid, but I'll say it anyway:
>>>
>>> You should write separate code to handle the MDB and SQL Server BEs.
>>>
>>> First, the obvious: Jet and SQL Server are very different.
>>>   * It is unlikely that this is the only variation you will have to account
>>> for throughout your code
>>>   * Variations in code make it harder to test
>>>   * When you do want to use SQL Server-specific features, like stored
>>> procedures, you will have to split the code anyway
>>>   * I have a personal distaste of "On Error Resume Next" coding, which I
>>> use
>>> only for object cleanup code where there is literally nothing to raise an
>>> error to.
>>>
>>> All told, the cost and effort to make a large existing code base generic
>>> will likely exceed the cost of just splitting it neatly into libraries
>>> that
>>> support each database type.
>>>
>>> Plus, you get more modular, flexible, testable code.
>>>
>>> Again, this is what you are trying to avoid, but I felt I should say it,
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> -Ken
>>>
>> --
>> AccessD mailing list
>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>>



More information about the AccessD mailing list