Desire to REMERGE Database and Program!!

[John Baker]

Hi:

Some time ago I developed a program in Access, and separated the database and the program
itself (using the normal access tools).We have the db on our server and the programin the
desktop system. I have modified the program a number of times, and now find that I need
to change the DB slightlt. This appears to require that I REMERGE the data base and
program, and I have no idea how to do that.

Can someone give me some pointers, since the help package is of NO help with this!

Regards

John Baker

[David W. Fenton]

pm*****@pksolutions.com (Peter Miller) wrote in
<g7********************************@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:00:10 GMT, dX********@bway.net.invalid
(David W. Fenton) wrote in comp.databases.ms-access:

<snip>

Heather's final post did nothing but confirm the validity of the
scenario I constructed based on the information in her previous
posts.
As you've repeated four times, and I'll take you on your word that
although your scenario exactly matched that which Heather
clarified in her follow-up, that you did not in fact see her post
before posting the many posts where you reference the scenario.

We had the same information, Peter, from the beginning, yet you
couldn't see any situation that would make unsplitting a
plausible solution. Now you agree that it *is* a valid approach
to the particular problem.

Yes.

But remember, just because I say ok, it wouldn't be a mistake to
unsplit given a slew of conditions, doesn't mean I think it should
be done. . .

I agree with that, of course.

But I thought the point of contention was whether or not I was
being malicious or not in posting the code for unsplitting. Given
that you acknowledge that there are scenarios where it is a viable
alternative (if not the one you consider optimal), I don't see that
you can say that it was any kind of mistake for me to post the
code.

And I had the same information that you had at the time I posted
that solution and had made this determination based on that
incomplete information.
. . . Personally, I think that if an app is in a well designed
state, it often makes more sense to keep it flexible, than to
limit in a way that may work well for a very specific
implementation, but will need to be reworked if that situation
varies even slightly. If any of Heather remote offices ever
needed more active involvement in the process, her re-merged
solution fails quickly and needs to be reworked. Had she stuck
with the original better design, she could easily handle multiple
users at each remote site, the ability for them to edit data, etc,
etc.
This is a different set of questions, and I'm certainly inclined to
agree with you. However, the issue I thought we were discussing was
whether or not it was a good thing to post the code for
unsplitting. You seem to agree now that it was OK, as it's a viable
approach (if not the one you would choose personally). I post
answers to many questions about techniques I don't use in my own
coding, because I prefer other methods. I see nothing inconsistent
about this.
So while I agree that the scenario outlined does not make an
unmerged implementation as crazy as it first sounded to me, I'm
not in any way suggesting I would unmerge the files.
Who ever at any time suggested that you do anything of the sort?

I think you didn't see the possibilities precisely because of a
predisposition to a particular approach to a problem. We all have
such predispositions, but the vehemence of your disagreement with
me that unsplitting was worth contemplating leaves you in
something of an Emily Litella situation -- rather than asking
further questions, you had an unequivocal answer.

I'm sorry. I didn't see the post where you asked for further
details before posting a solution. Did I miss it?

I offered the solution, rather than saying "the solution you are
asking for is inappropriate." I didn't question the validity of her
approach, I simply answered her question.

You took issue with her approach absent the details, which, I
infer, you never considered.
I posted that I thought it better to rethink the need than seek
the code because that is what I thought was appropriate. I still
think she is better served by thinking through the issues than
pouncing on a workable piece of code and implementing it.

She responded positively to both our posts.

I approached the question for what it asked, based on the
information provided.

As did I. We just had different views on the suitability of the
requested solution.

Which is an issue that's entirely separate from the suggestion that
I was toying with her by posting a solution which you acknowledge
now is perfectly viable.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Peter Miller]

David,

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:58:24 GMT, dX********@bway.net.invalid (David
W. Fenton) wrote in comp.databases.ms-access:

But I thought the point of contention was whether or not I was
being malicious or not in posting the code for unsplitting.

But I never said (or meant to imply) malice on your part. I used
'toying' to imply a sense of play, yes, at the posters expense, but
not that you wished them any harm. If your post was a sincere attempt
to help someone and the lack of caveats was because you saw no problem
with such a solution (as you clearly state was the case) then so be
it. I was wrong to think you held back with your concerns. No big
deal. I *did* have concerns about such a solution, and I expressed
them. End of story.

So while I agree that the scenario outlined does not make an
unmerged implementation as crazy as it first sounded to me, I'm
not in any way suggesting I would unmerge the files.

Who ever at any time suggested that you do anything of the sort?

The implication of my comments was that since I specifically WOULD NOT
solve this problem with such a solution because of strong
disagreements about the wisdom of doing so, and since I thought most
developers would share that sense of concern (someone with a split app
wants to merge it for a situation where merging has issues and is not
required), I equate not being willing to employ such a solution myself
with not being willing to post code to do that very same thing.

You suggested that since I had accepted that a situation could exist
where merging was not a problem, I was wrong to express complete
disagreement with merging at the outset. I explained why this was not
so.

I approached the question for what it asked, based on the
information provided.

As did I. We just had different views on the suitability of the
requested solution.

Which is an issue that's entirely separate from the suggestion that
I was toying with her by posting a solution which you acknowledge
now is perfectly viable.

Agreed. But I've already made clear that I did not mean to imply any
malice on your part, and accept that you had none of the concerns I
had about why this was such a bad idea when you posted your solution.
I don't think it was illogical for me to consider that you might have
such concerns, and since they were not expressed in your posted
solution, I commented on that. I've apologized for any unintended
implications, and see have no interest in continuing this thread if
you are unwilling to accept that.

Actually, I have no interest in continuing this thread - period.
Peter Miller
__________________________________________________ __________
PK Solutions -- Data Recovery for Microsoft Access/Jet/SQL
Free quotes, Guaranteed lowest prices and best results
www.pksolutions.com 1.866.FILE.FIX 1.760.476.9051