Access Back-End Over the Internet?

[Raphi]

Hi,

I've been using an Access application I wrote for an office with the
front-end stored on all computers and the back-end on one of them serving as
an Access file server.

Now we're moving to a 2nd office 15 minutes down the road. Only one office
will be open at a time, so theoretically it'd be possible to copy the
back-end manually every night from one office to another, but frankly,
that's pretty annoying.

So does anyone have any good Internet suggestions? Some way I can either (a)
have one office use the back-end database off the other computer (one office
has high speed Internet, it could be possible to get high-speed Internet at
the second office as well) or (b) automatically update the back-end database
over the Internet from one computer to the other besides for using something
really manual like e-mail (this needs to be really simple/automatic)?

Thanks.

[Lauren Wilson]

And thus far, NO ONE has offered insight into doing this via HTTP! Is
it not possible to do that?
On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:33:15 -0400, "Raphi"
<le**@DELETEME.optonline.net.REMOVE> wrote:

Hi,

I've been using an Access application I wrote for an office with the
front-end stored on all computers and the back-end on one of them serving as
an Access file server.

Now we're moving to a 2nd office 15 minutes down the road. Only one office
will be open at a time, so theoretically it'd be possible to copy the
back-end manually every night from one office to another, but frankly,
that's pretty annoying.

So does anyone have any good Internet suggestions? Some way I can either (a)
have one office use the back-end database off the other computer (one office
has high speed Internet, it could be possible to get high-speed Internet at
the second office as well) or (b) automatically update the back-end database
over the Internet from one computer to the other besides for using something
really manual like e-mail (this needs to be really simple/automatic)?

Thanks.

[billmiami2]

Absolutely. This is exactly what a web interface does. If you want to
control an access database via HTTP, then build a web interface.

Bill E.

[Rick Brandt]

Lauren Wilson wrote:

And thus far, NO ONE has offered insight into doing this via HTTP! Is
it not possible to do that?

Possible, but not trivial. You could build a web service like a java servlet
that would accept data input and requests for data output in HTTPRequests issued
by your Access application and return requested data in the form of an XML
stream in the HTTP response.

I have two major applications that do this. They are not really intended to keep
two databases entirely synchronized though the methods could be adapted to that
purpose I suppose.

In my case a local Access database is used to create documents and the data for
these documents is stored locally in a standard Jet file. These are documents
that traditionally had been filled out on paper and either mailed or faxed into
the corporate office. With the Access application they are "submitted" over the
internet instead.

I use the MSXML.dll functions to generate an HTTPRequest and package the data in
a POST as an XML stream. A java servlet on our web server processes the request
by parsing the XML and stuffing the data into our corporate database. It then
returns a failure/success message in the HTTP response. The users can also
request that data be sent from the corporate database and inported back into the
local file by much the same methods.

The difficulty would be in making this more generic. In my case each type of
record upload/download is handled by custom routines at both ends specifically
geared to that type of data structure. A complex database with lots of tables
would be a time-consuming thing to set up, but once you have a working model a
great deal of it is a matter of copy/paste/modify.

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

[John A. Mason]

>

my experience is with Direct
Synchronizations only.

Then you have NO BUSINESS whatsoever making recommendations about
the use of replication in a WAN environment.

If you're using direct replication over a WAN then you are very
lucky to not have lost data.

The lack of experience in anything but direct replication means that
you have simply not encountered the vast majority of problems
associated with replication.

David,
I have EVERY RIGHT to make my informed recommendations, as you do.
I have used Direct Replication/Synchronizations of the LAN and WAN (as
mentioned in a previous post) for 4 years. I repeat, I have had minimal
problems. It works well in MY environment. I am sure I am not unique.
Maybe I am not so 'LUCKY' as you have stated. Maybe I am MORE SKILLED in
this particular application of Replication than you have been.
Again, your judgmental is really unprofessional. And I find that sad,
because you are obviously have extensive experience in Replication (which I
respect and admire)... yet you also have obviously *NOT* seen it all...
because you refuse to believe my experience and you write it off to 'LUCK'.
Sad.
Regards,
John

[Lyle Fairfield]

John A. Mason wrote:

David,
<snips>
Maybe I am MORE SKILLED in
this particular application of Replication than you have been.

I doubt that; David is as almost as skilled with those things he uses as
he is knowledgeable about those things with which he has no experience
whatsoever.

--
--
Lyle

"The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same. They
find one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and
action that will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to
impose that on all thinking people."
- Gilbert Highet

[David W. Fenton]

"John A. Mason" <ja*******@MYearthlink.net> wrote in
news:0U****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net:

I have EVERY RIGHT to make my informed recommendations, as you do.
I have used Direct Replication/Synchronizations of the LAN and WAN
(as mentioned in a previous post) for 4 years. I repeat, I have
had minimal problems. It works well in MY environment. I am sure I
am not unique. Maybe I am not so 'LUCKY' as you have stated. Maybe
I am MORE SKILLED in this particular application of Replication
than you have been. Again, your judgmental is really
unprofessional. And I find that sad, because you are obviously
have extensive experience in Replication (which I respect and
admire)... yet you also have obviously *NOT* seen it all...
because you refuse to believe my experience and you write it off
to 'LUCK'. Sad.

Sorry, but anyone who recommends direct replication over a WAN is
incompetent to be making recommendations, however well it may seem
to be working for you in your environment. The fact is that the
reliability of the WAN you have experienced is not normal, and it's
precisely your lack of experience with different environments that
makes your recommendation dangerous.

How can you know that someone following your advice would have the
same level of WAN reliability that you seem to have been
experiencing?

How can you know what the problems are with direct replication over
anything over a LAN if you've never experienced any of them?

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

[David W. Fenton]

Lauren Wilson <no****@private.com> wrote in
news:t5********************************@4ax.com:

On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:33:15 -0400, "Raphi"
<le**@DELETEME.optonline.net.REMOVE> wrote:

I've been using an Access application I wrote for an office with
the front-end stored on all computers and the back-end on one of
them serving as an Access file server.

Now we're moving to a 2nd office 15 minutes down the road. Only
one office will be open at a time, so theoretically it'd be
possible to copy the back-end manually every night from one office
to another, but frankly, that's pretty annoying.

So does anyone have any good Internet suggestions? Some way I can
either (a) have one office use the back-end database off the other
computer (one office has high speed Internet, it could be possible
to get high-speed Internet at the second office as well) or (b)
automatically update the back-end database over the Internet from
one computer to the other besides for using something really
manual like e-mail (this needs to be really simple/automatic)?

And thus far, NO ONE has offered insight into doing this via HTTP!
Is it not possible to do that?

Do *what*?

What was requested simply can *not* be done over HTTP.

Doing it that way would require discarding the Access application
and designing a browser-based application from scratch. That's a lot
of work and takes a lot of time and effort, and still wouldn't be
comparable in functionality and performance to an Access app running
locally.

So, the reason why no one has addressed the topic is because it was
simply not a real-world solution to the problem as described by the
original poster.

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