Multiple users on access 03

[bluemoon9]

Hi all,
for access 03, do we need special code to allow multiple users to add, delete, edit records at the same time? or access 03 already has this function built in?

thanks!
bluemoon

[RuralGuy]

The function is already there but you need to split the db and give everyone their own copy of the FrontEnd.

[bluemoon9]

thank you. I already did split the db into backend and frontend and only distribute to the users the frontend.

thanks!

bluemoon

[RuralGuy]

You are welcome and have fun.

[NeoPa]

It's also possible of course (without FE/BE split), if you ensure all clients are configured to work in a compatible way from Tools / Options / Advanced.

[RuralGuy]

NeoPa: It is my understanding that not splitting a db in a MultiUser situation is a formula for corruption. Is this *not* the case?

[NeoPa]

I'm no expert as my experience is only with a quite low level of multiple usage for any of my databases.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that corruptions abound, but I'm not sure if the Advanced tab settings in such cases were ever set up correctly.

I certainly haven't experienced a problem (certainly not that I was aware was caused by this issue). I'm pretty sure all the corruptions I've experienced were related to updating the design (code etc), when I would necessarily have had the database opened exclusively anyway.

Please understand, I'm not saying my experience proves this is NOT the case, simply that it hasn't been for me (and I'm certainly not suggesting the OP re-merge his databases in this case).

[RuralGuy]

The Microsoft Team thinks it is a good idea:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ac...400961033.aspx
...as does MVP Tony Toews:
http://www.granite.ab.ca/access/splitapp/why.htm
I believe most of the MVPs recommend this for MultiUser situations.

[NeoPa]

Not really an easy discussion to have in a thread. There's relevant, and irrelevant in those links. If there's one relevant point in there that would tend to sway me, it's the implication that corruptions are more likely in an environment where a single database is used. I split my databases, but I don't have multiple copies of the FE. I haven't found it to be necessary (in the ten or so years I've been working with them), although my direct experience is hardly a survey.

Having said that, it was never my position that multiple FEs is a bad idea, or that anyone already with that setup should consider changing their approach.

[RuralGuy]

I understood that NeoPa. It is just that corruption can be so destructive that I feel all precautions should be taken where possible.

[NeoPa]

Probably wise words when all is said and done. I think I'm on the brink of switching to recommending that solution only in future. Particularly when the questioner is not known to be pretty experienced in their own right.

[NeoPa]

For anyone interested, a Hijack post has been split across to Multi-User Lockout.