Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Multi-User FE to BE's (Access 97)

    I have three (nearly identical) multi-user databases that we 'freeze' (copy) about twice per year. It has been a few years and we now have several databases. My plan was to develop one Front End that could access any one of the Back Ends that a user selected. I used the "Refresh - single" code, and modified it slightly for this application (run one time for password database, a second time to select the data desired). I really prefer this approach since it allows me to continue and update the Front End 'features', and easily make them available to all the databases. By the way, the databases are located on a shared drive, accessible globally 24/7.

    Here's the problem: with the FE on the shared drive, when a second user opens the Front End and chooses a different Back End from the first user, the Front End changes the first user's BE connection. How can I modify the code so it doesn't do this? From my position, it is much easier to maintain the FE on the shared drive (instead of each user copying it locally).

    I thought about having each user copy the Front End to their C: Drive. However, I run into the same issue if a user wants to simultaneously access multiple databases (open multiple copies of the Front End and point to different Back Ends).

    TIA, Jerry

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Evergreen, CO, USA
    Thanked 65 Times in 64 Posts

    Re: Multi-User FE to BE's (Access 97)

    Hi Jerry,

    Having each person run their own front-end would certainly make the problem less serious. We normally recommend that anyhow, because if you ever go to 2000/2002 you can't make design changes if someone else has the database open - check out the tutorial on our website for lots of other reasons. However you are correct as that step won't allow a single user to look at two or more back-ends at the same time unless they actually have two (or three or six) copies of the front-end on their hard drive.

    My view is that the proliferation of databases is really your problem. Is there a reason for not putting all the archive tables into a single database (size would be a good one), and making the archive database read-only? Having connections to all of the frozen tables would eliminate the need to connect to different databases on the fly. Just my <img src=/S/2cents.gif border=0 alt=2cents width=15 height=15>

Posting Permissions

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