Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    kitT
    Guest

    Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    <img src=/S/confused.gif border=0 alt=confused width=15 height=20>
    I have two databases that share linked tables (both ways). Before I converted them from Access97 to Access2k, I could have them both open at the same time and edit in design mode etc to my heart's content. Now I can only edit the first one opened. I've tried shared and exclusive default open mode and neither seems to work, they have No Locks as default record locking and "Open databases using record level locking" is checked.

    Am I stuck with this - it is not convenient to have to close one to be able to change the design.

    Thanks for any advice.

  2. #2
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Kenton, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    I have a ton of horror stories about converting/viewing/linking etc.... from 97 to 2K, but for the most part the quickest way I have found to correct theses type of problems is to create a new dB and import everything thing into it. That usually sorts out most of my problems.

  3. #3
    kitT
    Guest

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    You are saying I *should* be able to design/edit both dbs while they are open? <img src=/S/thinks.gif border=0 alt=thinks width=15 height=15>

  4. #4
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Evergreen, CO, USA
    Posts
    6,623
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 60 Times in 60 Posts

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    In Access 2k things got tightened up a bunch - in particular to make a design change to anything other than tables or queries, you must have exclusive access to the database containing the object. Because you are linking tables both ways, you encounter problems. In general that is not recommended - the preferred approach would be to put all tables into a back-end and then link the two front-ends to the tables in the back-end. That also solves the issue of having exclusive access.
    Wendell

  5. #5
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    It is possible to have both a back end and a front end database open and editable in Access 2000 simultaneously. However, if you are cross-linking tables between these two databases and then trying to manipulate forms that rely on the other database or that rely on a mix of tables from the two, then I'm not surprised you ran into problems.

    It was very easy to get sloppy about design changes in Access 97 and earlier. I'm glad that was changed in 2000 because there were too many times when "no one" was in my database and I made changes to it only to find the next day that my changes were gone because someone had gone home without logging out and when they closed the database, their copy overwrote my changes.

    Cross-linking is simply a bad idea and is to be avoided at all costs. It is also unnecessary and unmanageable.
    Charlotte

  6. #6
    kitT
    Guest

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    And until now I was so proud of my achievement (suitably chastised) <img src=/S/blush.gif border=0 alt=blush width=15 height=15>

    What I have is a diary/contact manager that I use to manage appointments, people, phone calls, notes etc and a separate financial system (multiple bank accounts, expenses, etc), which is linked to the diary so that I can automatically generate invoices based on the time worked as shown in the diary. The cross links from the finance system to the diary/contact system are also for billing purposes, so that I can generate invoices etc using the info in the contact manager.

    I have been thinking of revising the system in any case. Should I perhaps separate out the data (keeping it as two separate systems) and create one or two front ends? I prefer to keep the diary/contacts data separate from the financial - both are critical, but I suppose I'd have to say the finance is more critical than the contacts (in any case I do backup frequently).

    As you can tell, I am strictly amateur at this, but would like to do it properly just the same. <img src=/S/yep.gif border=0 alt=yep width=15 height=15>

  7. #7
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    16,775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    You have a couple of choices. You can put all the data, financial and diary into a single back end and have one or two front ends, or you can separate the data and link to it through a single front end, or you can have separate front and back ends. It sounds to me like the second choice is the best fit for what you're describing.
    Charlotte

  8. #8
    kitT
    Guest

    Re: Shared vs Exclusive (Access 2000)

    Thank you - will give some thought to the best way to reconstruct. Tend to agree with you that option 2 is the best. (I must admit it's grown like topsy and needs a good revision).

    <img src=/S/groovin.gif border=0 alt=groovin width=21 height=21>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •