> Talking about that one specific feature, this is code
> I was working on today:
>
> Dim db As Object
> Dim dbe As Object
> Dim tdf As Object
> Dim sConnect As String
>
> Set dbe = CreateObject("dao.dbengine.36")
>
> dbe.DefaultPassword = "mypass"
> dbe.DefaultUser = "myuser"
> dbe.SystemDB = "c:\my.mdw"
> Set db = dbe.opendatabase("c:\my9.mde")
> db.Close
>
> Set db = CodeDb
>
> End Sub
>
> my9.mde is not referenced or linked. my.mdw is not
> the current workgroup. my9.mde is not the current database.
>
>
> As a result of this code: "You do not have exclusive ....
>
> OK, this one is just some obscure bug: it just shows
> how far from perfect the 'exclusive access' switch is.
>
> (david)
>
>
>
> "Pat Hartman(MVP)" <patsky[ at ]NoSpam.optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:ezF5Y097FHA.3804[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I think I was only talking about one specific feature (the ability to
>>change objects when multiple users have the db open) that changed with
>>A2K. I wasn't saying that A2K in general was better than A97. In fact I
>>think just the opposite was true. A2003 is good enough to convert to
>>though.
>>
>> "david epsom dot com dot au" <david[ at ]epsomdotcomdotau> wrote in message
>> news:ejnETek7FHA.444[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>> Years ago, I made a public statement that I did not
>>> think A97 was 'better' than A2K, and that I was sure
>>> that after we became accustomed to A2K we would come
>>> to recognise that it had attractions A97 did not match,
>>> just as A97, the product we were familiar with, had
>>> attractions A2K did not match.
>>>
>>> I was wrong. A97 was better than A2K.
>>>
>>> I use code libraries in Access databases.
>>>
>>> I frequently have to enter and exit the code libraries,
>>> as well as the base database which references them.
>>>
>>> Access 2000, which always loads code libraries in
>>> shared mode, and then refuses to release them, throws
>>> up irritating messages if I want to look at a form
>>> in a library in design mode, if an instance of access
>>> is loaded which once loaded the mde version of the
>>> code library as a reference.
>>>
>>>>>> It is only object changes that cause the corruption
>>>
>>> Access can't tell that the loaded code library is
>>> a) A different file (mde)
>>> b) Not in use (just held open)
>>> c) Opened in a mode which did not allow form design edits.
>>>
>>> Ok, using code libraries is not SOP.
>>>
>>> So this is just another half-assed broken feature
>>> (like autonumber and name-autocorrect) which doesn't
>>> affect many users.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> point of view.---- In fact, Access is finally quite good.
>>>
>>>
>>> Call it like you see it.
>>>
>>> (david)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Pat Hartman(MVP)" <patsky[ at ]NoSpam.optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ekOvBJM7FHA.3048[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>> You seem to be experiencing some problem that others are not. Perhaps
>>>> you should start a new thread on the topic. Having to exit and
>>>> re-enter to make changes is not SOP.
>>>>
>>>> <david[ at ]epsomdotcomdotau> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23HsK%23eJ7FHA.2628[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Except:
>>>>>
>>>>>> this point of view.---- In fact, Access is finally quite good. You
>>>>>
>>>>> No, having to repeatedly exit Access and re-enter to make changes
>>>>> when you are the only user on the only machine is irritating
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, just having the stupid message come up every time I want
>>>>> to look at a form in an mdb is irritating.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, even the fact that MDB libraries load in shared mode
>>>>> and you can view the code but not edit and there is no way
>>>>> to tell in code when looking at the collections which kind of
>>>>> module you are dealing with is irritating.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, even the fact the MDB libraries always load in shared mode
>>>>> when CurrentDB is in exclusive mode is irritating, just as a runtime
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't do development on shared files in A97. I don't do
>>>>> development
>>>>> on shared files in A2K. I do development as a single user on a single
>>>>> machine and A2K is constantly getting in my way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad the A2K developers couldn't work out how to put their
>>>>> program objects in a multi-user database and still maintain
>>>>> referential
>>>>> integrity.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then, too bad the A2K developers brought out a shoddy, bug
>>>>> ridden application, with new features some of which hardly anybody
>>>>> wanted (double byte characters), and most of which still don't work
>>>>> (autonumber reseed, name auto-correct)
>>>>>
>>>>> (david)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Pat Hartman(MVP)" <patsky[ at ]NoSpam.optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eKE$3iI7FHA.3200[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> You don't have to work at the same workstation. You simply cannot
>>>>>> both be
>>>>>> working on the same database at the same time. -----Access is not
>>>>>> good at
>>>>>> this point of view.---- In fact, Access is finally quite good. You
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have the same issue working in any professional development
>>>>>> environment.
>>>>>> All of them require the use of a product such as SourceSafe to manage
>>>>> change
>>>>>> control. Otherwise, you have chaos. No development project can
>>>>>> survive
>>>>>> with multiple people working on the same objects at the same time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't have SourceSafe and multiple developers still need to
>>>>>> work on
>>>>>> the same application simultaneously, you'll need to carefully
>>>>>> segregate
>>>>> the
>>>>>> objects so you don't stomp on each other. Then use a consolidated
>>>>> database
>>>>>> to hold all finished objects. Move your objects to the finished
>>>>>> database
>>>>>> after they are tested. Test them again once they are added to the
>>>>>> consolidated database. I think purchasing SourceSafe is a
>>>>>> better/safer
>>>>>> method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tim" <Tim[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:33622268-BC50-47B5-9E94-F2F3D12D7C3A[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>> > Thank you for your tip. What i understand is since i don't have
>>>>>> > SourceSafe, I
>>>>>> > have to work on the same workstation with another developer! In
>>>>>> > other
>>>>>> > word,
>>>>>> > one guy is working and other guy is staring at the screen. To my
>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>> > Access is not good at this point of view.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks, tim
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "Pat Hartman(MVP)" wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> A97 was the last version that allowed an .mdb to be opened by
>>>>>> >> multiple
>>>>>> >> people making object changes. This is very dangerous and easily
>>>>>> >> leads
>>>>> to
>>>>>> >> corruption so from A2K on, you need to have SourceSafe installed
>>>>>> >> if you
>>>>>> >> want
>>>>>> >> multiple developers working on a shared .mdb
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> There is no problem with an .mdb being shared by multiple people
>>>>>> >> making
>>>>>> >> data
>>>>>> >> changes. It is only object changes that cause the corruption
>>>>>> >> problems.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> "Tim" <Tim[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> news:595D0D64-9D02-4BA6-87D2-0209A5C3D237[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>> >> > Hi Pat,
>>>>>> >> > Thank you for your tip. Yes, we do have a separated production
>>>>>> >> > db.
>>>>> What
>>>>>> >> > I'd
>>>>>> >> > like to ask is I have other developers so I want to make a copy
>>>>>> >> > of
>>>>> this
>>>>>> >> > db
>>>>>> >> > for myself to play with it, but I am not sure that if many
>>>>>> >> > poeple use
>>>>>> >> > the
>>>>>> >> > same Access front-end database, it may be corruped? Is that
>>>>>> >> > possible?
>>>>>> >> > If
>>>>>> >> > yes,
>>>>>> >> > then what should I do?
>>>>>> >> > Thanks
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > "Pat Hartman(MVP)" wrote:
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> I strongly recommend always working with a copy of the
>>>>>> >> >> database.
>>>>> ONLY
>>>>>> >> >> the
>>>>>> >> >> users should ever use the "production" database and that should
>>>>>> >> >> be
>>>>> for
>>>>>> >> >> data
>>>>>> >> >> entry. They should never be allowed to modify objects in the
>>>>>> >> >> "production"
>>>>>> >> >> database.
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> "Tim" <Tim[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> >> news:8A0502F7-91A0-42D5-A81D-21AA5BF0D54B[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>>>>> >> >> > My db is the MS mdb front-end and SQL Server back-end. I'd
>>>>>> >> >> > like to
>>>>>> >> >> > make
>>>>>> >> >> > a
>>>>>> >> >> > duplicate db to play with it. Do you think it's a good idea?
>>>>>> >> >> > Is
>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> >> > original
>>>>>> >> >> > one likely to be corrupted?
>>>>>> >> >> > Thanks,
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>