[AccessD] Access and SQL Server

My point was that I disagree with the statement "Real SQL DBs are designed to be 
asynchronous".   

SQL Server function primarily using synchronous connections - whan you request a 
recordset, you wait for it to be returned.


-- 
Stuart

On 1 Mar 2011 at 15:01, Jim Lawrence wrote:

> Hi Stuart:
> 
> I must have missed your point but it is a great article.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Stuart
> McLachlan Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:46 PM To: Access Developers
> discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Access and SQL
> Server
> 
> Guess SQL Server isn't a real SQL DB then.
> 
> MS had to build Service Broker, especially to assist with asynchronous
> operations. 
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345113%28v=sql.90%29.aspx
> 
> <quote>
> Summary: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Service Broker is a new platform
> for building distributed asynchronous database applications. Including
> an asynchronous, reliable messaging feature in the SQL Server database
> makes it possible to build a variety of database applications that
> were difficult, if not impossible, to build before. </quote>
> 
> Why is the default connection method to SQL Server synchronous?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stuart
> 
> On 1 Mar 2011 at 8:41, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> 
> > Real SQL DBs are designed to be asynchronous. Just because you can
> > work around its philosophy of design does not mean you should.
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
>