|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
I hava an access ADP, now I woul like to access the back end in SQL server
2000 in my computer from a remote computer by internet to make testings. How
can I do? I would like to access by IP, is it possible?
Thanks
Jose
|
|
http://www.no-ip.com/
Don't forget to open the firewall for the port 1433 (if you have one). If
you are using an external modem with multiple ports or a router, you must
also configure them so that they will redirect any external connection to
your machine.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8F9D520A-672D-412C-B93C-F5FCABFC818A[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] >I hava an access ADP, now I woul like to access the back end in SQL server
> 2000 in my computer from a remote computer by internet to make testings.
> How
> can I do? I would like to access by IP, is it possible?
>
> Thanks
> Jose
|
|
Dear Jose:
I have used VPN successfully for this purpose, and recommend that.
Tom Ellison
"Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8F9D520A-672D-412C-B93C-F5FCABFC818A[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] >I hava an access ADP, now I woul like to access the back end in SQL server
> 2000 in my computer from a remote computer by internet to make testings.
> How
> can I do? I would like to access by IP, is it possible?
>
> Thanks
> Jose
|
|
it works fine,
thanks
"Tom Ellison" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Dear Jose:
>
> I have used VPN successfully for this purpose, and recommend that.
>
> Tom Ellison
>
>
> "Jose Perdigao" <JosePerdigao[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8F9D520A-672D-412C-B93C-F5FCABFC818A[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >I hava an access ADP, now I woul like to access the back end in SQL server
> > 2000 in my computer from a remote computer by internet to make testings.
> > How
> > can I do? I would like to access by IP, is it possible?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jose
>
>
>
|
|
yes; i was QUITE amazed with how well this works; i mean-- yet another
reason that ADP trumps MDB
|
|
My initial experiment with ADPs when they first came out was to try it over
VPN. Opening a rather complex form over VPN at a 500k byte connection with
a 10-15 second latency was a disaster with the MDB. The MDB must have
turned the line around several hundred times. It required about 75 minutes
to just open this form. The same form (very complex really) opened with the
ADP in 20 seconds. That's a better than 200:1 ratio of performance. This
is one of the reasons I immediately changed all development to ADPs, though
not the largest reason. There were many other reasons of performance and of
development efficiency that have made me very glad to have switched, some of
which are better than this 200:1 ratio.
BTW, this form takes about 4-5 seconds to open over a 100MB LAN. Obviously,
just reading the code and interpreting it is taking nearly 5 seconds.
Tom Ellison
<aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138711080.243610.297420[ at ]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > yes; i was QUITE amazed with how well this works; i mean-- yet another
> reason that ADP trumps MDB
>
|
|
Correction: 500K bit connection.
Tom Ellison
"Tom Ellison" <tellison[ at ]jcdoyle.com> wrote in message
news:eLex8$qJGHA.3936[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > My initial experiment with ADPs when they first came out was to try it > over VPN. Opening a rather complex form over VPN at a 500k byte > connection with a 10-15 second latency was a disaster with the MDB. The > MDB must have turned the line around several hundred times. It required > about 75 minutes to just open this form. The same form (very complex > really) opened with the ADP in 20 seconds. That's a better than 200:1 > ratio of performance. This is one of the reasons I immediately changed > all development to ADPs, though not the largest reason. There were many > other reasons of performance and of development efficiency that have made > me very glad to have switched, some of which are better than this 200:1 > ratio. > > BTW, this form takes about 4-5 seconds to open over a 100MB LAN. > Obviously, just reading the code and interpreting it is taking nearly 5 > seconds. > > Tom Ellison > > > <aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1138711080.243610.297420[ at ]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> yes; i was QUITE amazed with how well this works; i mean-- yet another >> reason that ADP trumps MDB >> > >
|
|
Thanks Tom; i've been trying to say that for years now
so we got 3 votes for ADP and 0 for MDB.
Tom Ellison wrote:
[Quoted Text] > My initial experiment with ADPs when they first came out was to try it over > VPN. Opening a rather complex form over VPN at a 500k byte connection with > a 10-15 second latency was a disaster with the MDB. The MDB must have > turned the line around several hundred times. It required about 75 minutes > to just open this form. The same form (very complex really) opened with the > ADP in 20 seconds. That's a better than 200:1 ratio of performance. This > is one of the reasons I immediately changed all development to ADPs, though > not the largest reason. There were many other reasons of performance and of > development efficiency that have made me very glad to have switched, some of > which are better than this 200:1 ratio. > > BTW, this form takes about 4-5 seconds to open over a 100MB LAN. Obviously, > just reading the code and interpreting it is taking nearly 5 seconds. > > Tom Ellison > > > <aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1138711080.243610.297420[ at ]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > yes; i was QUITE amazed with how well this works; i mean-- yet another > > reason that ADP trumps MDB > >
|
|
Dear Aaron:
Well, my vote is strong for ADP given the applications I usually produce. I
still work in MDBs when required, and when appropriate. Both are very good
solutions for different purposes. The trick is to know when to use each.
Having used ADPs for some time, there is really no advantage in MDB if I am
the programmer. However, in simpler cases, where the advantages of an ADP
are not necessarily apparent, it is not justified to suggest that a
programmer needs to learn a largely new technology to little or no gain.
Many of the MVPs have seen this need and have learned ADPs or to use MDBs
with pass-thru queries to MSDE. They are not ingorant of it. But realize
that, in newsgroups other than those specifically for ADPs, nearly all the
questions are from programmers still strugling to learn MDBs. MDBs are
capable of performing what these programmers need, and is a good place to
start. Whether they ever need a more complex but more powerful platform is
uncertain. Most of them will never move on to anything like MDBs and SQL
Server. For those, like you, who have done so, I say "bravo" and I enjoy
your experience. But this will not do for those not ready to learn a new
level of technology, and who may never need it. You don't have to convince
me, but there's no need to try to convice them. They must be allowed to
develope skills naturally. Was it not at all like that for you? It was for
me!
Tom Ellison
<aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138991307.610063.309570[ at ]g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > Thanks Tom; i've been trying to say that for years now > > so we got 3 votes for ADP and 0 for MDB. > > > > > Tom Ellison wrote: >> My initial experiment with ADPs when they first came out was to try it >> over >> VPN. Opening a rather complex form over VPN at a 500k byte connection >> with >> a 10-15 second latency was a disaster with the MDB. The MDB must have >> turned the line around several hundred times. It required about 75 >> minutes >> to just open this form. The same form (very complex really) opened with >> the >> ADP in 20 seconds. That's a better than 200:1 ratio of performance. >> This >> is one of the reasons I immediately changed all development to ADPs, >> though >> not the largest reason. There were many other reasons of performance and >> of >> development efficiency that have made me very glad to have switched, some >> of >> which are better than this 200:1 ratio. >> >> BTW, this form takes about 4-5 seconds to open over a 100MB LAN. >> Obviously, >> just reading the code and interpreting it is taking nearly 5 seconds. >> >> Tom Ellison >> >> >> <aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1138711080.243610.297420[ at ]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> > yes; i was QUITE amazed with how well this works; i mean-- yet another >> > reason that ADP trumps MDB >> > >
|
|
i never would be a DBA today if i hadn't insisted on using ADP.
It just appals me that people run out and spend thousands of dollars on
toad and oracle.. when Access Data Projects have the best query design
tools anywhere
and i just swear; they just make way too many excuses for MDB
im tired of 'relink, refresh, reimport'
im tired of connection strings; i insist that ADP is inherently 10x
SIMPLER than MDB in the long run.
sure; parameters are a bear.
but when it comes to length of development vs. risk of losing data?
I believe that having a more robust db backend is always worth the
extra effort.
and query analyzer?
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better; more powerful-- than MDB
|
|
Dear Aaron:
Much of what you say rings very true to me. Of course, QA is not in Access.
Not that I could live without it. And, as a tool, my opinion is that it
beats everything else I've seen. But then, I live in QA for days at a time.
It is not length of development that is the issue, I expect. It is the
"learning curve" for novices to become SQL Server DBAs, or the budget of
small companies to be able to afford one. So many Access applications are
written by John in the receiving departnemt, or Mary in accounting. There
can be considerable utility in that, and there can be disaster. Those of us
who try to support them in the NGs try to turn some of the failure into
success. Sometimes John or Mary go on to become adept, even expert, and a
few will become SQL DBAs and surpass us all. Others may be able to stop
pulling on their hair and get a good night's sleep. But, you cannot push
novices into ADPs and database administration (which so often means being a
senior database architect, rather than the guy who knows how to create and
run a backup script).
Your closing remark is mostly true, but not entirely. For what you do, and
for nearly all of what I do, it is better, and in all cases, more powerful.
But for a large number of people, it is not something they can handle, or
which they need or can justify. So, let them start up from something less
powerful, because it is simplified. It is not superior "in the long run"
but many of those are not in it for the long run. For them, the short run
is as far as they're going. Indeed, I expect this is the majority. They're
not going to become DBAs. They're not going to hire one.
That's my $0.02. I'll send you a bill if you send me your address.
Tom Ellison
<aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139123543.288212.281430[ at ]g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] >i never would be a DBA today if i hadn't insisted on using ADP.
>
> It just appals me that people run out and spend thousands of dollars on
> toad and oracle.. when Access Data Projects have the best query design
> tools anywhere
>
> and i just swear; they just make way too many excuses for MDB
>
> im tired of 'relink, refresh, reimport'
> im tired of connection strings; i insist that ADP is inherently 10x
> SIMPLER than MDB in the long run.
>
> sure; parameters are a bear.
>
> but when it comes to length of development vs. risk of losing data?
>
> I believe that having a more robust db backend is always worth the
> extra effort.
>
> and query analyzer?
>
> SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better; more powerful-- than MDB
>
|
|
i know that the learning curve for ADP is _LESS_ than the learning
curve for mdb
with mdb you spend all your time running around; learning workarounds.
can't stack select query on top of select query? change one into a temp
table..
bloating, refreshing, relinking, importing query defs?
ADP DOES IT ALL AUTOMAGICALLY
i am just stunned by the beauty of ADP sometimes.. i dont know how i
got by before this..
without ADP i would still be writing stupid little baby apps in mdb and
xls..
if we just set out these wimps to learn the RIGHT LANGUAGE the first
time; maybe everyone would be a lot happier in the long run
i've just seen too many dead-end access developers
and i know that ADP has _ALL_ the necessary features to make it easy on
newbies
i just.. i swear; i mean.. query analyzer rocks and it just boggles my
mind that kids still get into database by learning mdb.. it shoudl be
all about the adp boyzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
Dear Aaron:
Your points are valid, but not universally held. For persons of
considerable technical experience, your evaluation has considerable merit.
I agree with most of what you say as it pertains to developers with
considerable skills. I don't think most hold this true for the many novices
that come along. Few of them will ever progress to the level where ADPs are
something they'd be willing to tackle. Perhaps they would be better off if
they did try. But, clearly, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Tom Ellison
<aaron.kempf[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139208662.928331.146070[ at ]o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] >i know that the learning curve for ADP is _LESS_ than the learning
> curve for mdb
>
> with mdb you spend all your time running around; learning workarounds.
>
> can't stack select query on top of select query? change one into a temp
> table..
>
> bloating, refreshing, relinking, importing query defs?
>
> ADP DOES IT ALL AUTOMAGICALLY
>
> i am just stunned by the beauty of ADP sometimes.. i dont know how i
> got by before this..
> without ADP i would still be writing stupid little baby apps in mdb and
> xls..
>
> if we just set out these wimps to learn the RIGHT LANGUAGE the first
> time; maybe everyone would be a lot happier in the long run
>
> i've just seen too many dead-end access developers
>
> and i know that ADP has _ALL_ the necessary features to make it easy on
> newbies
>
> i just.. i swear; i mean.. query analyzer rocks and it just boggles my
> mind that kids still get into database by learning mdb.. it shoudl be
> all about the adp boyzzzzzzzzzz
>
|
|
|