|
Posted by Thomas Bartkus on June 5, 2006, 10:00 am
Please log in for more thread options >
> By the way
> access 97 is still as good as a b-52 bomber, which is slated to still be
> around til the year 2043. In fact, I have said all along, that microsoft
> has too many employees now and are going way way too fast. Modern plastic
> is good, but grainite is still better for a counter top.
Sorry to disagree, but Office 97 was nowhere near as robust as a B-52.
Office 2000 was a major (and essential!) bug fix to 97. And even the
venerable B-52 has no useful place in aviation other than as an artifact ;-)
> They are wipping out too much too fast. Leave something that works well
> alone. I truley believe that some of these young, wet behind the ears,
> fresh out of college programmers are the type that would jump off of a
cliff
> if they heard it was the end thing to do. For now, I will keep using
access
> 97 and 2000 for ado, and I will not get anywhere near the edge of a cliff.
You are in no danger whatsover of falling off the cliff edge.
From Access 97, the cliff edge is way, *way* over the horizon ;-)
Thomas Bartkus
>
> >
> >> Hi there
> >>
> >> I am an Access developer, and I have written applications for a 30
> >> telephone call center, using the standard multiuser jet engine, it all
> >> works fine, but I want to move our systems onto MySQL, as we get the
> >> odd #DELETED# (that old chestnut) so that it is more stable, ...
> >
> > You shouldn't be seeing #DELETED# errors.
> > It makes me concerned that you may have deeper problems that won't be
> > solved
> > by merely porting to MySQL.
> >
> > You may want to explain this a bit more.
> >
> > Hopefully, you are using Access version 2000 or higher. Access 97 at
this
> > point is positively prehistoric. With prehistoricly oversized bugs, it
is
> > beyond redemption.
> >
> >> I have
> >> installed mysql and myodbc and configured it in data sources (ODBC) and
> >> it works fine (done the TEST).
> >
> > That's good and useful, but it does little more than prove you can
> > communicate with the MySQL server. A good starting point, however.
> >
> >> But when I try to export a table from the mdb
> >> I get the following prompt
> >> "[MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver] Could not determine the driver name"
> >> In advanced part of the ODBC config it says
> >> DRIVER={MySQL ODBC 3.51 Driver} (I don't know if this is a description
> >> or a path)
> >
> > It sounds like you are trying to use the Access table export utility to
> > port
> > your Access tables to MySQL. I'm sure you can muddle through that but I
> > don't recommend it.
> >
> > If you have Access expertise but are MySQL green, then I would suggest -
> >
> > 1) That you construct your tables in MySQL to match your Access tables.
> > Best to use a GUI utility. I use MySQL Control Center, but there are
many
> > others that will work. Use fields that are direct analogues of field
> > types
> > available in Access.
> >
> > 2) Create linked tables (in Access) to your new (empty!) MySQL tables.
> > Create these linked tables right alongside your Access data tables.
> >
> > 3) Use the Access query builder to create "append" queries that will
> > populate your empty MySQL (linked) tables with data from your Access
> > tables.
> >
> > Errors you get when you do these data appends will be indictive that
your
> > MySQL table structure does not match your Access table structure
> > precisely.
> > This method gives you the opportunity to work these differences out. The
> > data appends should work smoothly and error free.
> >
> > Once this is accomplished, you can work with the linked tables just as
you
> > would any other Access tables, even though the data actually resides
> > inside
> > MySQL.
> > Or
> > You can put Access asside and communicate.
> > DAO or ADO <-> MySQL ODBC <-> MySQL
> >
> > Don't erase Access though! It does come in handy.
> >
> >> I am using a dev serv, not sure if I need to configure it or if it is
> >> as simple as to change the driver name to the DLL or if is is
> >> descriptive
> >
> > "using a dev serv" ???
> > I don't know what you are talking about here.
> >
> >> I'm confused
> >
> > That will pass ;-)
> > Thomas Bartkus
> >
> >
>
>
| 
XML Sitemap