Michael L Torrie wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 19:48 +0100, Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:
>
>>> Surely it would be MUCH less trouble to move the backend to Postgres,
>>> SQLite, or even SQL Server Express, all of which are free.
>>>
>>>
>> Indeed, which is what I'm going to do in th
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 19:48 +0100, Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:
> > Surely it would be MUCH less trouble to move the backend to Postgres,
> > SQLite, or even SQL Server Express, all of which are free.
> >
> Indeed, which is what I'm going to do in the long term, rewrite the
> application.
No
Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:
> Tim Roberts wrote:
>> Access is trouble any time you have more than about 2 people using a
>> single database. It just wasn't designed for that environment.
>>
> I know, I know... just imagine that before accepting this job I didn't
> even know Access *could* b
Tim Roberts wrote:
Access is trouble any time you have more than about 2 people using a
single database. It just wasn't designed for that environment.
I know, I know... just imagine that before accepting this job I didn't
even know Access *could* be used *like* one, I always thought it
Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:
>
> I have an old application which uses Access, and possibly the reason
> why concurrent access wasn't designed is because transactions are not
> supported, so multiple writes could be trouble.
Access is trouble any time you have more than about 2 people using a
si
Hi.
I have an old application which uses Access, and possibly the reason
why concurrent access wasn't designed is because transactions are not
supported, so multiple writes could be trouble.
I was wondering if it would be possible to serialise all the read/write
operations through a micro ser
