MS Access Multiuser - Re: Best strategy for MU data entry form with multiple record subf

Author

Re: Best strategy for MU data entry form with multiple record subf

AliKwok

2005-08-22, 8:25 pm

Thanks for your reply Albert.

I have indeed wrapped the form in a transaction by programmatically
assigning the recordsets, and as I wrote, it was working fine for a single
user, but appears to lock whole pages when 2 users are attempting to enter
new records, or edit old ones. Version is A2002, as I wrote.
Since my settings are No Locks/Record-level locking and the recordsets'
locking setting is Optimistic, I can only suggest that 1) the Transaction
must override the optimistic setting, and 2) the potential for multiple child
records within the scope of the Transaction must override the record-level
locking. This is only my hypothesis to explain the observed behaviour - I
havn't had time to test it!

Thanks for your time and thought.

Ali

"Albert D.Kallal" wrote:

> First, using transaction only works for you recordset code, and DOES NOT
> work for forms.
>
> In other words, starting a transaction has not relation to a form.
>
>
>
> Not to my knowledge at all does the above happen. However, I don't see why
> the above would be a problem, or related to this in any way. You don't
> mention what version of ms-access, but the last 3 versions of ms-access do
> have record locking as opposed to page locking anyway. (so, anything after
> a97 would not be a problem. However, even a97 is not a problem, since there
> is NO REASON TO HAVE ANY kind of locking enable, or set for the CHILD
> TABLES!!).
>
> So, this issue is moot, since why bother locking the child records in ANY
> WAY at all? The ONLY way you are EVER going to edit a child record is by
> first finding, and bringing the master record/form. The child records will
> then display. So, you can't get to the child records unless you edit/find
> the MASTER record. (so, really, you only need to lock the master record). I
> see ZERO reason as to why you have and child record locking in the first
> place.
>
> As mentioned, actually all of the above may be moot, as transactions have
> NOTHING to do with forms anyway.
>
>
>
> Allowing a bail out of a master/child forms is something that ms-access does
> not do well. You *can* bind recordsets to a form that are wrapped in a
> transaction, but this assumes you have a existing design that will allow
> this (and that is not normal the case).
>
> So, keep in mind the issue of transactions, the issue of forms, the issue of
> locking...as they are all in face separate issues.
>
> Having said the above, you *can* build your own recordsets in code, and then
> ASSIGN these reocrdets to the form, and sub-forms reocrdset property. The
> link master/child settings do not work when you do this, but it is simple
> matter to put the assigning of the parent id in the child form in the before
> insert event of the child form
>
> Me!contact_id = Me.Parent!ContactID
>
> So, you can wrap a form in a transaction, but you will thus need to load up
> the one record into the master reocrdset, and load up the child records into
> a child reocrdset. This likely also means you will need some setup for the
> "adding" of records..
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
> pleaseNOOSpamKallal@
msn.com
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal
>
>
>
>

Albert D.Kallal

2005-08-22, 8:25 pm

"AliKwok" <AliKwok@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:665CC126-DEA0-47F6-BD85- 8F4C2D36C095@microso
ft.com...

> I can only suggest that 1) the Transaction
> must override the optimistic setting, and 2) the potential for multiple
> child
> records within the scope of the Transaction must override the record-level
> locking. This is only my hypothesis to explain the observed behaviour - I
> havn't had time to test it!

I seem to recall that some issues can arise. First, I would remove the forms
(and sub-forms) recordsouce. (I assume you built the forms with a bound
table/query). You then REMOVE the data source, since you are now using
recordsets.

If you done the above, then I perhaps there is some issue with locking. I
have not used the transaction idea in production, but I have test a form,
and it did seem to work ok (but, I did notice a lock on the record that
appeared *after* I did a commit. So, there certainly might be some lock
issue.

I would also make sure you are running a split database if not already.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@
msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

David C. Holley

2005-08-22, 8:25 pm

Have you considered the suggestion that I made in another post? In the
amount of time spent banging your head on the wall to get your fax
software to work, you could have easily driven the fax across the
street. (ie Sometimes is better to consider a different approach)

AliKwok wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Thanks for your reply Albert.
>
> I have indeed wrapped the form in a transaction by programmatically
> assigning the recordsets, and as I wrote, it was working fine for a single
> user, but appears to lock whole pages when 2 users are attempting to enter
> new records, or edit old ones. Version is A2002, as I wrote.
> Since my settings are No Locks/Record-level locking and the recordsets'
> locking setting is Optimistic, I can only suggest that 1) the Transaction
> must override the optimistic setting, and 2) the potential for multiple child
> records within the scope of the Transaction must override the record-level
> locking. This is only my hypothesis to explain the observed behaviour - I
> havn't had time to test it!
>
> Thanks for your time and thought.
>
> Ali
>
> "Albert D.Kallal" wrote:
>
>

German Saer

2005-08-23, 3:24 am

AliKwok,

I was about 80% of an application and something alike happens. Because
Access does not locks records but locks pages of records, you basically have
two options: Enlarge the child records size to a page-size or change the
data files to record-level locking data file. In my case for this reason
and others, I change the whole thing to a different platform. You could
only change the backend to a record-level locking data file such as DBFs and
the problem would be solve with some adjustments.

--
________________
German Saer
gsaer@hotmail.com
Orlando, FL

"David C. Holley" < DavidCHolley@netscap
e.net> wrote in message
news:O6Pq3D4pFHA.544@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> Have you considered the suggestion that I made in another post? In the
> amount of time spent banging your head on the wall to get your fax
> software to work, you could have easily driven the fax across the
> street. (ie Sometimes is better to consider a different approach)
>
> AliKwok wrote:
single[color=darkred
]
enter[color=darkred]

Transaction[color=da
rkred]
child[color=darkred]

record- level[color=darkred]

I[color=darkred]
Jet[color=darkred]
why[color=darkred]
do[color=darkred]
after[color=darkred]

there[color=darkred]

ANY[color=darkred]
will[color=darkred]
edit/find[color=darkred]
record). I[color=darkred]
have[color=darkred]
does[color=darkred]
issue of[color=darkred]
then[color=darkred]
The[color=darkred]
simple[color=darkred
]
before[color=darkred
]
up[color=darkred]
into[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]

Albert D.Kallal

2005-08-23, 3:24 am

> Because
> Access does not locks records but locks pages of records, you basically
> have
> two options: Enlarge the child records size to a page-size or change the
> data files to record-level locking data file.

The last 3 versions of ms-access (2000, 2002, and 2003) ALL support record,
or row locking. You have to go back about 10 years to office 97 for a
version that locks pages. So, your information is incorrect, and VERY
old....

And, while we are at this, this issue is not a ms-access problem, but what
database you are using (in this case, JET). As mentioned, JET for a long
time does support row/record locking. You can use ms-access with JET, sql
server, oracle etc. So, how things works is going to depend on what database
you use, and not the development system called ms-access.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@
msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

AliKwok

2005-08-24, 8:26 pm

Yes David, thank you, I did.

Forgive me not replying sooner - I was busy running acreoss the road.

Yes, I went back to the drawing board and ended up using local temporary
tables to store new records or changes.
I now performs as I intended in the first place, and the client is happy
with it!

Thank you all for your thoughts (some of which I haven't yet read - will do
so now)

Cheers

AliKwok

"David C. Holley" wrote:

> Have you considered the suggestion that I made in another post? In the
> amount of time spent banging your head on the wall to get your fax
> software to work, you could have easily driven the fax across the
> street. (ie Sometimes is better to consider a different approach)
>
> AliKwok wrote:
>

David C. Holley

2005-08-24, 8:26 pm

The temp tables of course being the alternative. My suggestion was
geared to a back-end workaround that *MIGHT* minimize the number of changes.

So I take it theres a good Irish Pub across the street?

AliKwok wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Yes David, thank you, I did.
>
> Forgive me not replying sooner - I was busy running acreoss the road.
>
> Yes, I went back to the drawing board and ended up using local temporary
> tables to store new records or changes.
> I now performs as I intended in the first place, and the client is happy
> with it!
>
> Thank you all for your thoughts (some of which I haven't yet read - will do
> so now)
>
> Cheers
>
> AliKwok
>
> "David C. Holley" wrote:
>
>

AliKwok

2005-08-25, 7:25 am

No, Opium Den ;0]

"David C. Holley" wrote:

> The temp tables of course being the alternative. My suggestion was
> geared to a back-end workaround that *MIGHT* minimize the number of changes.
>
> So I take it theres a good Irish Pub across the street?
>
> AliKwok wrote:
>

Sponsored Links