On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 02:10, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Christian Trutz wrote: > > At 08:48 15.11.2001 -0500, you wrote: > > I have ranted and raged about this driver. In the end I have only one > > > >> recommendation: NEVER USE THE ODBC-JDBC BRIDGE FOR ANYTHING! > > > > Ok I now, it's not a good idea using a ODBC-JDBC bridge but I must use > > MS Access 97 as database (the customer say this), do you know a JDBC > > driver for this database???? > > ooh! I hate that. I've ranted and raged about that as well. The question > is: "Is it a requirement to have a small database deployed with the > application as a file, or is it officially none other than the bane of all > serious db development (MS Access)?".
for me MS access is the only choice due to client policy from on high ;( > If you are STUCK without remedy on MS Access, I feel for you. There is no > alternative to ODBC-JDBC driver. In that case I would be VERY careful HOW > you design that database! If you do it in any other fashion than would > work on a real database, you have just screwed yourself. Access let's you > do many things that a real database won't--and they make it so easy to do > that with. NEVER use the "memo" or OLE object types, and NEVER let the > database get over 30-40MB in size. Access has a way of self-imploding at > that size. oh yer. I just finished fixing just that. We changed DB from access to sql server. It was expected to take 2 man days ... ended up taking 20 man days. Mainly as out peer layer had a few access-specific issues. If it wasn't for the ease of juniting the system I suspect it could have easily taken 2-3 times longer to fully test and integrate system. Blech -- Cheers, Pete "abandon all hope , ye who enter here" - dante, inferno -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
