Different MDAC ? different SQL server behaviour

[Tony Epton]

I have done a partial conversion of a large MS Access batch processing
program to use a SQL server 2000 back end.
All I have done is move all the access tables in to SQL server and
give them primary keys so that tje Access front end can attach to them
as updateable tables. No pass thru queries or anything that will take
advantage of the SQL facilities.

In my development environment I am running Access 97 on Windows 98.

The client is running Access 97 on Windows XP

I am seeing different behaviour between my environment and the clients
environment - with exactly the same data sitting on the back end SQL
databases and exactly the same Access 97 front end.

I have managed to knock all the bugs out of the program when it runs
in my environment - but in their environment we are still seeing the
dreaded "Record is Deleted" message - seems to occur in some
situations where I use an outer join and attempt to pick up a value
from a field in the non existent record side of the join.

QUESTION - presumably the discrepancies are caused by us running
different versions of MDAC

1) can anyone tell me where I can download that utility that tells you
which version of mdac you are running
2) which part of mdac am I using when access attaches to the SQL back
end but all the work is still being done by the access front end ?

ole db server for Access ? odbc driver for SQL, jet ?

Many thanks
Tony

[Randy Harris]

Note: This message has been multi posted.

[Tony Epton]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:10:58 GMT, "Randy Harris" <ra***@SpamFree.com>
wrote:

Note: This message has been multi posted.

Hi Randy - this is a sincere question - so please answer accordingly.
:-)

I take it from your response that posting to several newsgroups at a
time is bad etiquette ?

I have been using news groups on and off now for about 4 years now and
keep seeing references to multiple postings - but haven't really
understood the significance (apart from spam)

In this case, because the issue was urgent, and I was not sure if the
right person would read this group - I posted to 4 different groups I
subscribe to for MS Access.

Could some one please gently explain to me why muliple posting are a
bad thing, and what I should do if I have an urgent question that I am
hoping will catch the eye of the right expert who might generously
denote their time to help me ?

Thanks Tony

[Darryl Kerkeslager]

If you post to 4 newsgroups, than as many as 3 people may totally waste
their time replying. If it is a complex question, requiring lots of thought
and time, that's many, many minutes of valuable *volunteer* time lost.

Darryl Kerkeslager

<ace join_to wa**@iinet.net.au (Tony Epton)> wrote

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:10:58 GMT, "Randy Harris" <ra***@SpamFree.com>
wrote:

Note: This message has been multi posted.

Hi Randy - this is a sincere question - so please answer accordingly.
:-)

I take it from your response that posting to several newsgroups at a
time is bad etiquette ?

I have been using news groups on and off now for about 4 years now and
keep seeing references to multiple postings - but haven't really
understood the significance (apart from spam)

In this case, because the issue was urgent, and I was not sure if the
right person would read this group - I posted to 4 different groups I
subscribe to for MS Access.

Could some one please gently explain to me why muliple posting are a
bad thing, and what I should do if I have an urgent question that I am
hoping will catch the eye of the right expert who might generously
denote their time to help me ?

Thanks Tony

[Tony Epton]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:15:05 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<Ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

If you post to 4 newsgroups, than as many as 3 people may totally waste
their time replying. If it is a complex question, requiring lots of thought
and time, that's many, many minutes of valuable *volunteer* time lost.

Thanks Darryl
That makes sense

What if you put a banner on it saying "Also cross posted to ...and
then the names of the other groups" - or would that still be a "no no"
?

Many thanks
Tony

[Rick Brandt]

ace join_to wa**@iinet.net.au (Tony Epton) wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:15:05 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<Ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

If you post to 4 newsgroups, than as many as 3 people may totally
waste their time replying. If it is a complex question, requiring
lots of thought and time, that's many, many minutes of valuable
*volunteer* time lost.

Thanks Darryl
That makes sense

What if you put a banner on it saying "Also cross posted to ...and
then the names of the other groups" - or would that still be a "no no"
?

Many thanks
Tony

Oh, but it wouldn't have been a problem if you had crossposted. That's where you
submit ONE message to multiple groups in a single posting. When you crosspost
all responses show up in all groups regardless of which group the responder was
in. The post is also marked as "read" in all groups whenever it is read in one.
When you "multipost" neither of these things happen.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Tony Epton]

Oh, but it wouldn't have been a problem if you had crossposted. That's where you
submit ONE message to multiple groups in a single posting. When you crosspost
all responses show up in all groups regardless of which group the responder was
in. The post is also marked as "read" in all groups whenever it is read in one.
When you "multipost" neither of these things happen.

Oh !
<Sound of penny dropping.>

Just read help in my news program on crossposting

So just to confirm - it's OK to cross post as long as I do true cross
posting - ie compose one message only, and fill in multiple newsgroups
on the newsgroup line - yes ?

Many thanks
Tony

[Randy Harris]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32*************@individual.net...

ace join_to wa**@iinet.net.au (Tony Epton) wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:15:05 -0500, "Darryl Kerkeslager"
<Ke*********@comcast.net> wrote:

If you post to 4 newsgroups, than as many as 3 people may totally
waste their time replying. If it is a complex question, requiring
lots of thought and time, that's many, many minutes of valuable
*volunteer* time lost.
Thanks Darryl
That makes sense

What if you put a banner on it saying "Also cross posted to ...and
then the names of the other groups" - or would that still be a "no no"
?

Many thanks
Tony

Oh, but it wouldn't have been a problem if you had crossposted. That's

where you submit ONE message to multiple groups in a single posting. When you crosspost all responses show up in all groups regardless of which group the responder was in. The post is also marked as "read" in all groups whenever it is read in one. When you "multipost" neither of these things happen.

Tony, I think you'll find that most everyone will agree with the comments
made by both Darryl and Rick. Many regulars object to multi posting for the
reasons cited. Few people, however, object to cross posting. Respondents
can then immediately see if there have been previous replies.

HTH,
Randy
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Bas Cost Budde]

Tony Epton wrote:

So just to confirm - it's OK to cross post as long as I do true cross
posting - ie compose one message only, and fill in multiple newsgroups
on the newsgroup line - yes ?

Exactly that is the difference. Participants can see: ah, crosspost.
(okay) Otherwise they would realize (sometimes) when browsing another
group: ar, multipost. (bad). Others, who read only one group, do not
know the question may be answered in another group already. And you
yourself have to poll all groups.

--
Bas Cost Budde, Holland
http://www.heuveltop.nl/BasCB/msac_index.html
I prefer human mail above automated so in my address
replace the queue with a tea

[Rick Brandt]

ace join_to wa**@iinet.net.au (Tony Epton) wrote:

Oh, but it wouldn't have been a problem if you had crossposted.
That's where you submit ONE message to multiple groups in a single
posting. When you crosspost all responses show up in all groups
regardless of which group the responder was in. The post is also
marked as "read" in all groups whenever it is read in one. When you
"multipost" neither of these things happen.

Oh !
<Sound of penny dropping.>

Just read help in my news program on crossposting

So just to confirm - it's OK to cross post as long as I do true cross
posting - ie compose one message only, and fill in multiple newsgroups
on the newsgroup line - yes ?

Correct, with the caveat that crossposting to more than two or three groups is
also frowned upon.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com