Using Sharepoint 2010 for data storage but still running full Access client with vba and normal forms
in [Help]
|
From: Daniel A. Galant on 15 Dec 2009 18:14 I seriously don't think you understand at all what I have been saying. I never said that splitting out the front end of your Access database and publishing it via Access services on SharePoint was impossible. it certainly can be done using Access 2010 and SharePoint 2010. So you misinterpreted something somewhere in that regard. Secondly, > > I didn't say you called him a liar. I said you have contradicted his > assertions, and that you're either saying that he's mistaken (i.e., > a liar) or you are yourself mistaken. > You certainly did. This is where you began... "You're basically calling Albert a liar. I don't know who the hell you are are, but I know Albert, and I believe him and not you." Also, in that very same post you responded to my comment, >> > You can't use VBA when creating an Access database that you are > going to push up to SharePoint. VBA, Action Queries and > traditional Access macros are not supported by Access Services. by saying, >Not for web publication, but for distribution, it's still possible. >Albert makes this distinction explicitly in his discussions about >web vs. client forms. Which was all well and good and made the distinction I was unaware of. Had you been civil about it and stopped there without adding your attack on me, I have a feeling this would have been avoided. What you said at that point was fine. it was my understanding that when publishing to SharePoint, the compatibility checker looks for these things and reports them as illegal content. As I also mentioned, I have not played with this, and if I was wrong about that cool. I was referring to what you call web publication, and YOU even agreed with me on that point. So maybe we can let this drop as I have a feeling we are the only ones even looking at this anymore. -- Daniel A. Galant Imagine what we could be... if we could just imagine. "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9CE2AB72B2CF9f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.98... > "Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in > news:A0DBE0D6-E399-47DE-9B88-C4B5A339B728(a)microsoft.com: > >> Ok, I'll try and make this as civil as I can. I have indeed gone >> through this entire thread, > > It does not appear to me that you have done that at all. As outlined > below, I've followed the direct lineage of your own post to which > I'm replying here, and the References line demonstrates quite > clearly that the topic was pretty clearly front-end distribution > from the SECOND post in the References line of YOUR OWN POST. > >> and only this thread as it is the only >> one I have been posting in or are concerned with. I have also >> watched, again, the relevant posted video that was pointed out by >> Albert, in his response to Bob, early on in this thread to see if >> I perhaps misunderstood its content. > > You are, apparently, not actually examining the content of the > discussion with a proper newsreader that threads posts based on the > References line. If you had, you wouldn't be making the claims that > you are making, as the content of the posts in the References header > of your own post contradict what you're saying. > >> In going over the contents of >> all this, the only one who is out of line here David is you. At no >> time have I called Albert a liar, > > I didn't say you called him a liar. I said you have contradicted his > assertions, and that you're either saying that he's mistaken (i.e., > a liar) or you are yourself mistaken. > >> I would love for you to point >> out where in this thread I have done so. > > Specifically: > > "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in > news:Xns9CDCA92C1E2CFf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.98: > > [this is a quotation from your MessageID: > <en4uXxQeKHA.5608(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>)] >>> You can't use VBA when creating an Access database that you are >>> going to push up to SharePoint. VBA, Action Queries and >>> traditional Access macros are not supported by Access Services. >> >> Not for web publication, but for distribution, it's still >> possible. Albert makes this distinction explicitly in his >> discussions about web vs. client forms. >> >> You're basically calling Albert a liar. I don't know who the hell >> you are are, but I know Albert, and I believe him and not you. > > That was a direct response to a claim of yours that I said > contradicts what Albert has said. Is Albert correct or are you? If > Albert is, then you owe him an apology. > >> Also, you have stated: >> >> "If so, it's still completely irrelevant, since we weren't talking >> about data storage." >> >> I would like to bring to your attention this from the original >> post of this thread. >> >> "Again my interest is data on sharepoint 2010 and use normal >> windows/ Access clients on each user's PC. I am not trying to >> take about the new web forms and reports which run in a browser." > > And if you look at Albert's first reply to that (MessageID: > <qoHSm.49392$ky1.44754(a)newsfe14.iad>) you'll see that his first line > is: > >> You even use SharePoint to pull down an application that is split. > > And he follows that with: > >> In other words, the data can reside on a backend accDB file >> sitting on a server, and the front end pulled down from >> SharePoint (but, this case, this means you suing a spit >> system, and that is NOT appropriate for wireless or a wan). > > If you then follow the MessageIDs in the References to your own > post, next comes a reply from Bob Alston > (<1JHSm.38493$cX4.19748(a)newsfe10.iad>), and then a reply from Albert > (<uAAQFBkdKHA.5136(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>), both of which are quite > clearly discussing the scenario of using Sharepoint to distribute > a front end that is linked to a local ACCDB back end. > > Then I replied to Albert (MessageID: > <Xns9CD9A9BF68F92f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.99>): > >> Albert, can you look at my other post, replying to Bob, asking >> about version control issues with synchronizing a published app? > > At this point, is there any doubt what we are talking about? > > These posts are directly in the lineage of the post to which I am > now replying, i.e., the part of the thread where you interjected > this (MessageID: <OtUQ35FeKHA.4880(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>): > >> Ok, I'll admit that I've been trying to follow a bit of this >> discussion and I'm completely lost here as to what you are trying >> to do. > > ...and then went off on an unrelated discussion, contradicting what > Albert had been outlining: > >> A SharePoint Front End server is simply the access point that a >> user connects to to then get at whatever data you are trying to >> make available. The front ends don't sync to anything, they pull >> data from a backend SQL server. > > This is wrong. Simply wrong, which is why I asked you to explain > your contradiction of Albert. > > [] > >> This was in response to my first posting in this thread. Again, I >> really would like to stress, this thread. So as far as I can see >> David, it is you who are out of line with your attacks on me and >> perhaps should apologize. > > Follow the MessageIDs and explain to me how I have incorrectly > described the content of the particular messages to which you have > replied, which are clearly in a lineage that was discussion > front-end distribution via Sharepoint, something that you deny is > possible. > >> Is it possible that during this >> discussion I have stated something that is incorrect? Perhaps, but >> then isn't that the purpose of these forums? To learn? Would you >> like me to point out the times, in this thread, you have stated >> something that is incorrect? Did I call you a liar? No, you are >> simply incorrect in your thinking. > > Go back and READ THE THREAD. You apparently have not done so thus > far, or have done so in a completely haphazard way that doesn't > represent the actual order of the replies involved. > >> If you want to talk about a split Access database, using Access >> 2010 and SharePoint 2010, where the data still sits in Access but >> the front end application is now in SharePoint, fine. I suggest >> you go and review the video again. > > Bob Alston and I have discussing that topic IN THIS VERY THREAD. And > you pop in denying that it can be done. > >> http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive/2009/12/02/the-access-show-man >> aging-access-databases-with-sharepoint.aspx >> >> When you split the database like this, the application part >> becomes a SharePoint site, pointing to the data that still sits in >> your Access database. > > You are going off on the tangent again, ignoring what Albert has > been talking about. > > [tangential content omitted, as it just perpetuates your fundamental > misunderstanding of the topic of the thread and your apparent > failure to actually read Albert's posts in the thread that discuss > what you claim is impossible] > >> If this is not the case, I welcome Albert, or anyone, educating me >> on how this now works differently. I'm not offended by this, I >> enjoy learning. > > Just read the thread. It's all there. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 16 Dec 2009 23:01 "Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in news:934F47E9-AB41-4B8D-9A81-79358522EE31(a)microsoft.com: > Had > you been civil about it and stopped there without adding your > attack on me, I have a feeling this would have been avoided. In other words, you're one of those sensitive types who gets offended easily. Duly noted. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Daniel A. Galant on 17 Dec 2009 09:56 Yeah, and I also have to have the last word. -- Daniel A. Galant Imagine what we could be... if we could just imagine. "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9CE3E7A2E7CBEf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.97... > "Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in > news:934F47E9-AB41-4B8D-9A81-79358522EE31(a)microsoft.com: > >> Had >> you been civil about it and stopped there without adding your >> attack on me, I have a feeling this would have been avoided. > > In other words, you're one of those sensitive types who gets > offended easily. > > Duly noted. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Keith Wilby on 11 Jan 2010 05:00
"Daniel A. Galant" <daniel.galant(a)mindsharp.com> wrote in message news:903C9FE7-0432-45C5-A513-D6F968A346D3(a)microsoft.com... > Yeah, and I also have to have the last word. > > Daniel, Don't beat yourself up about David's lack of courtesy and manners when he responds to a posting he doesn't like. It is his failing, not yours. Regards, Keith. |