Access to IPad

[Gismo]

I all,
has anyone tried to create a access front end to run on an IPad with back end on a server?

 

[theDBguy]

Hi. Not exactly. What I’ve seen is both the front and back end files are on the server and you use iPad to remote in to the server.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Typically, this iPad-to-server setup will work just fine until the moment that the Wi-Fi signal gets interrupted momentarily, at which time you almost instantly corrupt the BE file.

Access protocols do not work (anywhere from "not very well" to "horrendously bad") when on any intermittent network. Even a network based on Ethernet hard-wired connectivity can experience a glitch if there is active routing underway in sub-nets and the router crashes. When I was with the Navy, we had Gigabit Ethernet but still had a crash now and then if the router for our segment "burped." That interruption just about ALWAYS caused me to have to repair the DB with users offline.

I would suggest that the iPad environment is just not a good situation. I know from other threads that you are trying to get a roving person a way to do something, but with Access, it just doesn't work that well. Even if the BE is an active SQL Server, intermittent connections are app killers.

You might want to consider some sort of limited field functionality and use an exported file to record field transactions. Protocols like FTP/SFTP and HTTP/HTTPS can better stand up through network hiccups to get the file where you want it. Then you can import the file and use it as a basis for an update. But direct iPad remote to Access? Not a good prognosis.

The other possibility is an SQL BE that hosts more than one connectivity method, but that means someone would have to develop a web page or two for this iPad user. Both Access and web front-ends can work with active SQL BE databases.

 

[isladogs]

AFAIK Access cannot be made to run on a Mac OS.
Although I know dual boot is possible on Apple PCs, I don't believe that is the case for iPads.

However I run Access 2010 perfectly successfully on a Windows tablet. In fact most of my Access apps are designed to run on a tablet or desktop. I even sell a couple of apps specifically designed to run on a tablet.

However as already stated, having an Access FE on a tablet with a wireless connection to the network BE is recipe for disaster.
I tried it a few years ago and it really doesn't work.
See post #8 in this thread https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=303690
In fact that thread was mainly asking about putting Access apps on a USB stick.
Better than using wireless but still a bad idea

 

[Gismo]

Does anyone know about Filemaker?
I recently started programming for the company to be able to access via IPad, windows and mac. Works perfect as it is an apple product. The issue is I am much more proficient with access than Filemaker. I was wondering, if filemaker works well with windows, what is the chance of having a full functioning access DB but to link update table to filemaker.

Doc_man, i get your point, our shared drive on the server disconnects 10 minutes after a user has signed on to update the security policy. I have had to times when I had such a corrupt DB that I had to reinstall from server backup. Access is not very stable when it comes to network usage. Apparently filemaker was well designed in that matter but will take me a few year so be proficient enough to do what I do in access

 

[isladogs]

I don't believe Access tables can be read by Filemaker or vice versa.
You would have exactly the same issues with wireless connections using Filemaker.

So you would need a local copy of the data on the tablet to prevent that being an issue.
If you feel you are proficient in Access, why not consider a Windows tablet ...but not using a wireless connection

 

[Gismo]

Either tablet or IPad, the users in the field will have to use wireless.
I asked on the filemaker community for advise, will wait for that reply.
Feel like i am running into a brick wall here. took me a year to create the access program, will take me 2 year to do on filemaker, 6 months if I knew filemaker well enough

 

[isladogs]

Either tablet or IPad, the users in the field will have to use wireless.
I asked on the filemaker community for advise, will wait for that reply.
Feel like i am running into a brick wall here. took me a year to create the access program, will take me 2 year to do on filemaker, 6 months if I knew filemaker well enough

I apologise for saying this but why didn't you query the use of wireless at the start?

 

[Gismo]

I apologise for saying this but why didn't you query the use of wireless at the start?

Sorry about that, but I did mention IPad, which has to connect to server wireless in any case.

Thank you all for the reply, Im still stuck though.

 

[isladogs]

I meant when you started your project a year ago or indeed at any time before today.
There are frequent questions about this topic in this forum and elsewhere. The answer is always the same.
Whilst the Filemaker interface looks slick, I would be very surprised if it works well wirelessly.

I have suggested a way forward using Access on windows tablets with all data stored on the tablet when not physically connected to the network. What did you think of that idea?

 

[Cronk]

No one has mentioned the Citrix (or similar) option yet.

 

[isladogs]

Citrix and Terminal Services both work well for their stated purpose
However, I don't see how either are relevant to using a tablet safely with a wireless connection to a network BE file.

If I'm wrong, I'd be pleased to hear how it would work

 

[Cronk]

Colin

using a tablet safely with a wireless connection to a network BE file.

I've not set up anything like this but my understanding with Citrix is that there would be no wireless connection to the data. The wireless connection is to the FE running on the remote server. Wireless is only used for rendering screens from, or sending key stokes/mouse clicks to, the remote FE.

 

[isladogs]

Hmmm....
Sorry but I'm not convinced without seeing this in action!
I would need to understand how data could be updated reliably in real time despite inevitable breaks in connection to the FE on the server
Its also likely to be costly I would have thought

The alternative of synchronising the data with local tables on the tablet whilst connected to the network is definitely reliable and significantly less expensive

 

[CJ_London]

The reality of the world is we are becoming more and more wireless-centric. A number of my clients all have users using laptops from - slap it on the desk, plug in a monitor and off they go. No hardwired connection. Or work from home and connect wirelessly to their home router.

connecting to citrix/terminal server means the user effectively opens a desktop on the server, not their own machine, so in that respect wireless doesn't matter. If the connection is interrupted, it is the equivalent of disconnecting the monitor, not the machine - log back into the server again and there is your access app, still open. Subject to normal timeouts of course at which point the access app will just be closed - but then the chances are it isn't doing anything at the time so the risk of a partially completed transaction is very low if not non existent.

Sorry but I'm not convinced without seeing this in action!

I have a number of clients who use terminal server, I connect to them remotely, normally via a hardwire connection to my router, but on occasion wirelessly from my laptop when I'm working away - and have never experienced any issues other than slow connection speeds.

Having said all that I am pushing smaller clients to use sql server express as a backend as it is more robust. Larger clients will already be using the bigger beasts and are reluctant for new applications to muscle in on their capacity or allow the installation of express.

 

[isladogs]

When I was still teaching, I also used terminal server over a number of years.
It was slow but reliable.
I only used it with a wired connection as at that time my home wireless setup was VERY unreliable

I expect my poor experience testing an Access app over wireless connections (albeit almost 10 years ago) is influencing my views
See https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1610588&postcount=8

I'll do some new wireless testing at home with my tablet and see how I get on with both an Access BE and a SQL Server BE (using test data)

 

[Frothingslosh]

Colin, for what it's worth, I work from home 3 days a week, and use Citrix over a wifi connection. The only real issue I've encountered is a distinct lack of bandwidth when logged on remotely, and that stays the same regardless of whether I use wifi or hook up the cord. It only really becomes an issue when transferring larger data sets. My users also working from home generally don't claim to notice any real performance degradation, and we're not using a terminal setup - the front ends are stored locally.

Mind you, we still play it safe and run database backups several times a day as well as the standard SQL Server backups, but we have yet to encounter any wifi-related data corruption from the setup, and you know how large my company is and how much data we go through.

 

[isladogs]

OK I accept my opinion is based on a data model from about 10 years ago and it would appear that facts have changed since then.
(Does this remind anyone of another forum member in another current thread of over 100 posts?)

I believe I'm still correct in stating that Citrix isn't cheap!

 

[Gismo]

I meant when you started your project a year ago or indeed at any time before today.
There are frequent questions about this topic in this forum and elsewhere. The answer is always the same.
Whilst the Filemaker interface looks slick, I would be very surprised if it works well wirelessly.

I have suggested a way forward using Access on windows tablets with all data stored on the tablet when not physically connected to the network. What did you think of that idea?

The requirement is to be live with latest data, the guys away from base needs to update and at head office to collect the data as the transaction happens. so I understand whet you say, it makes sense in some way but they will have to get the update on the tables on a regular basis. Also, only IPad to be used at our company as a policy.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The only issue with Citrix in the suggested setup of connecting directly to the server is that you must convince the Citrix admin that each user needs a private folder in which to place a separate FE file. Otherwise you run into file lock conflicts.

Note also that if you have more than one Citrix user connecting to the Citrix server, you run into the issue that you TECHNICALLY need a different Access license. The one you would normally use is a client-system license, one copy of Access and one user at a time. But Citrix, if you have the potential of multiple connections, is not covered by that case. It is a multi-user single-machine license for that case.

If you can Citrix into the CLIENT machine (not the server) and keep the private copy of the FE file there, it can work. The licensing is the same as if the user were at the local system keyboard in that a "standard" off-the-shelf license would be legal. The Access license doesn't go into connection methods; it only "cares" about number of concurrent users on a given system.

I believe Pat Hartman has some experience in this. Search for a couple of her articles in Citrix. I would consider her as an expert for this particular situation based on what she has published in the past.

For Citrix, the key to understanding why this has half a chance in Hell of working is that unlike direct SMB (Windows file sharing) protocol over a wireless connection, Citrix uses a different protocol that allows reconnection to a session. (SMB simply cannot support that operation; the protocol doesn't contain the required "reconnect" handshake.) The SMB connection is on the local client to the local server and, as has been pointed out, as long as the hung session doesn't time out, you can reconnect with the session and resume what you are doing. However, if you have auto-timers on sessions, reconnect quickly because otherwise you will lose the session due to idleness and that would potentially give you the corruption you were trying to avoid.