Lookup what's needed to create a "runtime program". To see if your program
qualifies as "runtime", try running it with the /runtime switch. All sorts of
things need work, such as using custom rather than standard menus/toolbars, no
standard filters, all code MUST be error-trapped by YOU. Things like that.
The last, "trap all errors" will prevent it breaking and just leaving the user
in debug code. When one site I visited broke into code, the nice secretary
modified the code in an attempt to break out again!
"Runtime mode" is not of itself a security measure. It's requirements are just
good practice for a "bullet-proof" app. By all means (when running) put
/Runtime on the command-line shortcut, it's the way an app SHOULD be run (not
that people can't bypass it if they have Full Access).
If it's an mdb, put a password on the code (open any code, Tools, YourProg
Properties, Protection). This is not very secure if they download breaking
tools, but so far as I've tested it will prevent inadvertent breaking into
code.
Convert it to mde. This removes the base source code. This is considered to be
the best code security you can have in Access. mde prevents any design-mode
(other than tables/queries). Make sure you keep the mdb as there's no other
way to recover the original outside major hassles.
As I've mentioned, even an mdb wouldn't break into code whilst running if you
TRAPPED ALL ERRORS.
ALL ERRORS IN ALL CODE (not difficult)
Function Something
On Error Goto Err_Something
....do processing
Exit Function
Err_Something:
....do something, usually just display error
Exit Function
End Funtion
Chris
"John61" <wanghaodong[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uvT2QeKyGHA.540[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > We have an application made in Access (2002 sp2) with lots of VBA codes.
> Anybody has permission to use it, so no password.
>
> But we want to prevent user from entering any design mode. In case of any
> error occurring with code, it won't break into code module. What's the best
> way to implement this?
>
> Thanks.
>
> John
>
>
|