Converting app to ASP?
in [Help]
|
Prev: Library Reference not recognised - comdlg32.ocx - Microsft Common Dialog Control issue
Next: What do people actually use Access for?
From: Banana on 6 Apr 2010 08:12 Banana wrote: > Albert D. Kallal wrote: >> ... > > So, I don't know what Microsoft was thinking WRT Access Services, but I > don't think they really had intended it to be public facing any more > than the traditional Access applications were so that may be more or > less a moot point in a sense of speaking. Whoops - forgot one more point. Sharepoint itself also struck me as something more oriented for a company's intranet than for public facing. Not to say it doesn't do public facing sites but when you look over its feature, it's easy to get a sense that Sharepoint is meant to help with employees of the company far more than with the company's customer. So that's another factor for why I think public-facing sites may not been ultimately intended (though not technically restricted).
From: Albert D. Kallal on 6 Apr 2010 22:11 "Banana" <Banana(a)Republic.com> wrote in message news:4BBB2446.4060207(a)Republic.com... > I have a suspicion that's more or less intended, for same reasons we don't > really see shrink-wrapped Access applications (not to say there aren't, > just not many and usually for specialty market). I'd wager that large > majority of Access applications out in wild are in-house applications of > some kind and have no public face at all. That may be what they likewise > thought for Access Services - for a company's intranet or at least > garden-walled internet so their traveling salesman can go to a wireless > spot and do their synchronization... still not exactly public-facing even > though it's internet-accessible. That is a great observation. Since most access applications are not public applications, then it stands to reason that access web applications would not be any different. You are the 1st person to point this (now) obvious issue. However, I still going to setup some public facing sites using Access web anyway... -- Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP) Edmonton, Alberta Canada pleaseNOOSpamKallal(a)msn.com
From: Banana on 7 Apr 2010 11:02 Albert D. Kallal wrote: > However, I still going to setup some public facing sites using Access > web anyway... Yeah, we are fortunate that this isn't technically restricted so it's still an option for those who can manage it. It's just like those Access applications being used as a kiosk application or shrink wrapped application -- not the usual run of mill uses of Access but possible. Also, I suppose if there were enough demand/interest, the hosting providers may decide to provide some support for anonymous login. I _think_ this can be enabled Sharepoint site by Sharepoint site so someone could have a hosting account with say, two sites: www.myhosting.com/myprivatestuff and www.myhosting.com/mypublicstuff. I don't think it's possible to get a single page from www.myhosting.com/myprivatestuff to be open to any anonymous login - it's a per-site setting, not a per-page setting AFAICT. But I can be dead wrong here. I'd definitely love to hear how it comes out for you so we know what solutions we can offer to clients here.
From: David W. Fenton on 8 Apr 2010 18:44
"Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal(a)msn.com> wrote in news:iRRun.166714$2r7.96045(a)newsfe05.iad: > That is a great observation. Since most access applications are > not public applications, then it stands to reason that access web > applications would not be any different. You are the 1st person to > point this (now) obvious issue. I don't think that's obvious at all. The reason there aren't shink-wrapped apps is because you can't compile them easily enough so that they can install reliably. Access does not run any websites, either, but with 2010 that changes. When the rules change, different kind of apps can be created, and the only reason you don't see the apps that are missing is because Access couldn't do them properly, and that's now changing. > However, I still going to setup some public facing sites using > Access web anyway... I can't see using it for any of my clients, but that's because those who need websites already have them, and the necessary layer of separation between their database apps and their public-facing website is a feature, not a deficiency. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |