jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Fri Dec 9 13:29:42 CST 2011
>Are you suggesting that despite JC's innovative solution to the many-tabs problem, that all this shyte remains in memory despite JC's unloading of the various sub-forms? Nope it doesn't remain in memory if the subform on a tab unloads when you click off a tab. All objects on any form or subform loads into memory when the form loads, and unloads when the form unloads. My JIT stuff simply delays the loading of the subform until the user clicks the tab that the subform is on. I then (may) unload the subform(s) on that tab when the user clicks on another tab. The database connections form a pool. As any object in Access needs a connection, it goes to the pool to get one and when that object closes it returns the connection to the pool. The objects on a form are related to the number of available connections in that when it is time to load a form, all connections that the loading form needs have to exist (be available) when the form loads. However as the form unloads, it returns the connections back to the pool. That is quite the point of JIT subforms, to only get the connections when the user actually cares (is trying to look at the subform) and return these precious connections once the user moves on. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the number of objects (controls) a form can contain initially or how many can be added to the form right now. Each form has a similar pool of controls that it can add. The difference is that as you delete a control off a form it does not return that "spot" in the pool back to the pool. Thus over time, as you add and delete controls on the form, the number of available "spots" slowly diminishes until they are all used up. This "objects on a given form" pool has nothing to do with the "available database connections" pool. John W. Colby Colby Consulting Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it On 12/9/2011 12:41 PM, Arthur Fuller wrote: > Interesting theory, which I am in no position to prove or disprove. But I > am thinking of JC's JIT-tabbed forms construct. Are you suggesting that > despite JC's innovative solution to the many-tabs problem, that all this > shyte remains in memory despite JC's unloading of the various sub-forms? > Alternatively, am I missing the point completely? (Wouldn't be the first > time!) > > A.