Search results

I thought Visual Studio was more versatile than Access' IDE? Even if vba code modules were stored externally in Windows files, you still have to compile, link and load the object files, and runtime errors can still happen even though the modules compiled.

I'm also confused, as I thought the demo solutions presented in this thread are using popup modal subforms to simulate multiselect listbox controls?

I thought MS provided MVF's in Access for compatibility with db servers that support collections, like Informix and Oracle. Ironically, SQL Server doesn't support native MVF datatype, but complex UDF's can be created. Why is it necessary to put non_MVF multiselect controls in an Access subform...

That's random async. The Access DotNet interop apps I have worked on had those issues, so we added time delays after each API call to provide enough time for the http requests to put/get stuff, and verify completion, or continue looping until verified before moving on to the next step in the flow.

I think it's a 3rd party ODBC. I wouldn't be surprised if MS starts charging for Access runtimes 😳

It comes bundled with Access, but its not "built-in" to Access. No ODBC drivers were, or will ever be built into Access. Read it in this MS link: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/accessblog/access-announces-removal-of-salesforce-odbc-driver-in-october-2025/4408815

Understood about the complexities. Was MS' reason for hiding the junction table so users could not work with it, yet developers can because they can figure out how to? What could go wrong with querying and updating a visible junction table?

None of the ODBC drivers are built into Access. Access does have Data Connectors that are integrated with 3rd party API's.

Yes, there's always the possibility of prosecution losing the case, e.g. inadmissible evidence, entrapment, hung jury, Donald Trump is the defendant, etc.

I don't understand why MS didn't provide a multiselect list box control with checkboxes that maps to normalized tables. It would've actually been easier to implement that solution from the very beginning. So now we have users creating denormalized structures just to support desired user...

Yes, I have seen the three MIB movies over 20 times, and counting. You'd be surprised how many little details I have picked up from watching a movie over and over again.

You've been watching too many MIB movies. Stick with the Transformers Sector 7 outfit. I think the Feds already know everything there is to know about Jack and anyone else associated with his criminal activities. They have some really good forensic tools for gathering and analyzing relevant...

Maybe he's planning on claiming insanity? However, because of the severity of this case, they would lock him up in a nut house and throw away the key.

No thanks, i'm already discusted enough as it is. If he's guilty as charged, let the full weight of the Law fall upon him.

No, I'm saying when you add a DeviceID in the Machines table, you cannot allow the same device in more than one Machine record. If you transfer a device from one vending machine to another, you must first remove the device from the current machine before adding it to another machine. If some...

They already have enough on Jack. If they troll here it would be to find out if anyone else was involved with Jack.

The DeviceID should have a unique index so each device cannot be assigned to more than one machine.

I have seen several defendants claim they were unable to get a fair trial due to prejudiced publicity.

I agree with Doc and suggest we not publish anything that could alter the outcome of this case. We should lay low and wait until the conclusion of this case.

Did you add a Status Yes/No field so you can select which data you're going to give the new owner? In your other thread I suggested you not remove any data and use the Status field to filter the data you want the new owner to see.