Hi :) Yes, quite. So 2 different front-ends (such as Base on different machines or for different purposes) could use the same back-end.
"Daisy chaining" one to another seems like a really bad plan. Fairy lights on Xmas trees used to be daisy-chained which meant that if 1 bulb went out then they all did. That made it extremely difficult to find out which one (or more) was the problem. Nowadays most Xmas tree lights are done in parallel so that each bulb is independent of all the others. Now if one or more bulbs go the rest bravely shine on and it's easy to see which need replacing. Having a string of databases all depending on the all the rest to work properly sounds like a nightmare! On the other hand there is a lot of sense in a modular approach with specific discrete chunks doing specific jobs. Base and Access each have different modules within them. So that building a Form or Report straight from a Table makes it all quite inflexible and liable to problems later on. So it's generally better to build Queries, even if the Query doesn't actually do anything except pass everything straight through. Then in future years the table could change quite radically without forcing all the Forms and Reports to have to be redesigned. Just edit the Query a little so that all the Forms and Reports continue to get all get the inputs they are expecting. It's something that makes Base much more highly scalable than Access. Move the back-end tables from one program to another, either to get it smaller and lighter or to deal with a greater weight of data. perhaps move the back-end from a stand-alone machine onto a network or up onto a Cloud or some other place that might not even be envisaged possible during initial design of the database program. Even better is when Writer or Calc is used for the Forms and Reports so that those things can be viewed by wide-eyed-end-users with no training or understanding of database design. They just get usable output in a familiar setting and can edit around it themselves if they need to change font-size or formatting or write a new letter based on the old one. Regards from Tom :) On 11 March 2014 12:23, jomali <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Mark LaPierre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> <snip> >> Hey Alex, >> >> So what you are saying is that I can create a LO Base DB that references >> tables stored in the standalone HSQLDB database with the JDBC connector, >> and use that .odb file as a back end to another LO Base DB which acts as >> a front end? I've read, and been told on this mail list that LO Base >> can't do that. If I could do that I wouldn't need the standalone >> HSQLDB, just a plain .odb file with some tables in it. >> >> I've been trying to get this set up for months with no success. I could >> have done all this and more with Microsoft Access in just a few days. >> This really shouldn't be this hard. >> >> I think I need someone to hold my hand through the creation of just one >> very simple LO Base DB with just two tables in it. >> >> >> Mark, > > I think your confusion lies in equating an .odb file with an Access > database. The .odb file never contains the data. It is a sort of registry > that points to wherever the data is. Thus, Base is the front end, a real > database is the back end, and the .odb file serves as the intermediary (to > oversimplify). > > John > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
