Allowed to execute a source code (.accdb) file with Access Runtime?

[mdlueck]

Greetings,

Is it a requirement to using the Access Runtime version that the database VBA source code be compiled? Or will the Access Runtime raise no issue operating an .accdb file format?

Blessings,

 

[pr2-eugin]

AFAIK, it does not have to be compiled. The only requirement for the Runtime environment is that the file to have a ACCDR/MDR extension.

 

[mdlueck]

The only requirement for the Runtime environment is that the file to have a ACCDR/MDR extension.

Aaahhh... so just rename the .accdb file to .accdr and then the Access Runtime will open / play it just fine? If so, that is at least doable.

 

[pr2-eugin]

Yup, just rename the accdb extension to accdr. This will instruct the runtime engine to run the file, without doing crazy dance.

 

[pbaldy]

I don't think it matters either, and I've never used the "r" extension. Most of my users have the runtime version, and I've always distributed mde/accde files. I just tested an accdb on a PC with 2007 runtime and it ran it fine, though my testing was admittedly limited.

My understanding of the "r" extension was that it would force a computer with the full version of Access to run the file in runtime mode. If true, it would have no effect on a PC with only the runtime version installed.

 

[mdlueck]

Yup, just rename the accdb extension to accdr. This will instruct the runtime engine to run the file, without doing crazy dance.

Excellent, thank you.

 

[mdlueck]

I don't think it matters either, and I've never used the "r" extension. Most of my users have the runtime version, and I've always distributed mde/accde files.

However according to my original question, I desire to be able to distribute .accdb format files and not have to compile them.

If it is truly as simple as renaming the extension as has been suggested on this thread, for that simplicity I am thankful.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

the general issue with not compiling to a .de, is that the code is still there - and all the user needs to do is rename to a .db to see all the code.

the .dr facility is better used just for testing in a simulated run time environment

 

[pbaldy]

However according to my original question, I desire to be able to distribute .accdb format files and not have to compile them.

And I mentioned testing an accdb on a PC with just the runtime and it worked fine. Renaming the file isn't accomplishing anything on a computer that only has the runtime installed.

 

[mdlueck]

the general issue with not compiling to a .de, is that the code is still there - and all the user needs to do is rename to a .db to see all the code.

Which is exactly what I was seeking. The solutions I develop for clients are open source solutions. The client's paid for my consulting time to develop a solution for them, not a lock-in black box.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

Michael - it occurred to me.
I might still be inclined to use a .de rather than a .dr, for the distribution version - or at least discuss it with your client

It's one thing supplying code to the company for their use, but it may be another thing making the full code available to any of the users. Just a thought.