Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Columbia SC
    Posts
    81

    Unanswered: ADP and Sql server

    hey
    I m new to this and i dont know how to create adp project using access and sql server.
    actually what i hv heard from my manager that we gonna create the front end in access and backend in sql server 2000.
    I dont know from where to start reading abt it. if any body has good links or book plz send me.
    thx in advance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    It's not too difficult. Just open access and create a new database, selecting Access Data Project as the type.
    An ADP file has all the forms, reports, macros, and modules that you would expect from an Access database, but all the data is stored on the server.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    To be fair, if you are new to relational databases, Access and SQL Server then it is a steep learning curve from now on in.

    Step #1 before you do anything - get some sort of feel for relational database design by reading this closely:
    http://www.r937.com/relational.html
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nevada, USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Provided Answers: 6
    And just so you know, you don't have to create an ADP; an MDB will work fine with SQL Server. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Personally, I continue to use MDB's with it, and Microsoft itself seems to have moved away from ADP's (or at least not pushed them forward).
    Paul

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    What? You would use linked tables over an ADP design?

    I'm trying to think of any way that linked tables would be a better implementation than ADP, but I'm not coming up with much...

    Also, please support your statement that MS is moving away from ADPs. I've not heard anything about this.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nevada, USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Provided Answers: 6
    Blindman, I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinion. I didn't say linked tables were better, I simply said that you did not HAVE to use an ADP with SQL Server, and I said there were advantages and disadvantages to each. As to your question about whether I would use them, I not only would, I do.

    I can quote several Access MVP's on the topic (and perhaps should have disclosed that I am one myself), but here's the first I found from a highly respected MVP on another site, Pat Hartman:

    the .adp is being phased out. I would recommend not creating new applications in the .adp format. Unlike the .adp, Access .mdb's can be used just as effectively as front ends to ANY back end database for which there is an ODBC driver. The limitations of the .adp are too restrictive and SQL Server centric. The format has not been widely adoped and so there is no big push to enhance the feature. The .adp will still be supported in Access 12 when it is released but no enhancements have been made. In fact, although existing .adp's will be able to use SQL Server 2005, they will not be able to create new databases through the Access GUI as they can with older versions of SQL Server.

    If you like I can find others, but suffice it to say that there are many respected people who do not like ADP's. There are also many other respected people, such as yourself, who do. Again, my main point was simply to point out that it was not a requirement to use an ADP, but an option. I apologize if it came off otherwise.
    Paul

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by pbaldy
    I can quote several Access MVP's on the topic (and perhaps should have disclosed that I am one myself)
    Paul - is this recent? I don't remember this from the first time I came across you a year or two ago - I checked you out then after a few very positive references and would have thought I would have noted it.
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    FWIW I exclusively use MDB\Es too as I prefer the flexibility they allow. I can appreciate that ADPs might be easier and more intuitive (though not for me) and they do go some way to providing an all-in-one GUI. (and perhaps I should disclose that I am not an MVP myself )
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    pbaldy, thanks for supplying the quote from Pat Hartman. If what he says is true, I am most disappointed. I found ADPs to be much more convenient and much more efficient than linked tables. As a rapid application development platform for SQL Server, ADP files could not be beat.
    By the way, I wan't being accusatory in my post. Sometimes, when I say "Please support your statement", I really am just looking for more information. The rude jerk persona I exude is really just an act. Like Paris Hilton's stupidity, you know...
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nevada, USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Provided Answers: 6
    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    Paul - is this recent?
    No...it's been over a week now!

    Blindman, no offense taken here. If I can't come up with some backup for something I say, I shouldn't say it in the first place. By the way, just saw this post elsewhere this morning, from author/MVP John Viescas:

    If you're using a Project file (.adp) the answer is no. For what it's
    worth, Microsoft has given up on Project files. No enhancements in V12, and
    I suspect the feature will be deprecated in VNext. Microsoft now admits
    that the best front end to an SQL Server database in an mdb file using
    linked tables. When you do that, you can have local tables and also link to
    other databases - Oracle or MySQL.
    Paul

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Alpine Califormia
    Posts
    1,789

    Ok I'm trying to understand

    Please bare with me, what the finaly decision is that its better to link the tables and keep Access as an MDB rather then turn them into an ADP?? Is this correct??

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    Well, personally, I would strongly disagree.
    Linked tables are more difficult to manage and less efficient than using an ADP application.
    With ADP, all the code is executed at the server. While with MDB linked tables they code may or may not be issued as a pass-through sql statement. If Access is unable to construct the pass-through statement it will suck the data from database over your network and perform the calculation locally. You can bet that will be slow.
    With an ADP file you have one link to the source database, and that is it. And it is very easy to redirect that link to a different source. With MDB files every external object must be linked separately.
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    MDB = more flexibility but requires more sophisticated coding (read expertise and coding hours) to be truly efficient.
    ADP = easier to use (especially if you are more familiar with SQL Server) but is less flexible. Easier to leverage SSs power. I know an ADP cannot conntect to two instances simultaneously (hence less flexible). Is it also the same with SS dbs?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbaldy
    No...it's been over a week now!
    Congratulations Paul. I know you only flirt with posting over here but I have heard that you have built up a superb reputation over at ... er.... the other site and your MVPship is well earned.
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nevada, USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Provided Answers: 6
    I think asking which is better is like asking whether a sports car or pickup truck is better. They're different animals. They each have pros and cons, and which is better for you depends on your situation and needs.

    Thanks pootle. I actually visit here a lot, it's just that there are a lot of very strong users here, and most of the questions are already answered by the time I see them. If you guys would leave me some scraps, I'd post more.
    Paul

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    10,322
    Quote Originally Posted by pbaldy
    If you guys would leave me some scraps, I'd post more.
    Yeah, right..
    Brett
    8-)

    It's a Great Day for America everybody!

    dbforums Yak CorralRadio 'Rita
    dbForums Member List
    I'm Good Once as I ever was

    The physical order of data in a database has no meaning.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •