One backend or two?

[Jan]

I have a client that has two pretty distinct functions for which I'm
developing databases. There are only a few staff in a small office. It
looks like there are two tables that will be common to the two database
systems, and the rest are completely different. It's clear to me that I
want to develop two separate front-ends, one for each function. The
only question is whether I should make two back-ends as well (with one
having a link to the other for the two common tables), or use only one
back-end, with both front-ends linked to it.

I know it will work whichever way I do it, I'm only curious as to
whether anyone has an opinion on which is the preferred approach.

Thanks.

Jan

[PC Datasheet]

Jan,

My recommendation is one BE. Just for the sake of simplicity.

--
PC Datasheet
Your Resource For Help With Access, Excel And Word Applications
re******@pcdatasheet.com
www.pcdatasheet.com
"Jan" <ja*@stempelconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

I have a client that has two pretty distinct functions for which I'm
developing databases. There are only a few staff in a small office. It
looks like there are two tables that will be common to the two database
systems, and the rest are completely different. It's clear to me that I
want to develop two separate front-ends, one for each function. The
only question is whether I should make two back-ends as well (with one
having a link to the other for the two common tables), or use only one
back-end, with both front-ends linked to it.

I know it will work whichever way I do it, I'm only curious as to
whether anyone has an opinion on which is the preferred approach.

Thanks.

Jan

[MGFoster]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'd use one back-end. That way you can set up referential integrity
between the tables, which will ensure data integrity. With 2 back-ends
you'd have a heterogeneous db, which cannot have referential integrity
between tables.
--
MGFoster:::mgf00 <at> earthlink <decimal-point> net
Oakland, CA (USA)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBQlbB54echKqOuFEgEQIqgQCfSkQTsmYvOo+8rqQP4b8o2b KqKWwAoIul
XQiZ35s0CG5WqUHUFOiPQgdq
=+pLN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jan wrote:

I have a client that has two pretty distinct functions for which I'm
developing databases. There are only a few staff in a small office. It
looks like there are two tables that will be common to the two database
systems, and the rest are completely different. It's clear to me that I
want to develop two separate front-ends, one for each function. The
only question is whether I should make two back-ends as well (with one
having a link to the other for the two common tables), or use only one
back-end, with both front-ends linked to it.

I know it will work whichever way I do it, I'm only curious as to
whether anyone has an opinion on which is the preferred approach.

[dedejavu]

Save yourself a world of grief - use one BE.
Save yourself another world of grief, use one front end and have the
users choose the function they want.
I do it with logins, the users can only see the forms they are allowed
to.
Developer Express has a free sidebar that really can help form
management http://www.devexpress.com/Downloads/ActiveX/XSideBar/
Good luck
Pachydermitis

[paii, Ron]

<de******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

Save yourself a world of grief - use one BE.
Save yourself another world of grief, use one front end and have the
users choose the function they want.
I do it with logins, the users can only see the forms they are allowed
to.
Developer Express has a free sidebar that really can help form
management http://www.devexpress.com/Downloads/ActiveX/XSideBar/
Good luck
Pachydermitis

You don't even need a login, get the user name from the Windows login name

Environ$("UserName")

[dedejavu]

true - unless more than one user uses that computer. e.g. receiving in
a warehouse.