Backend Access database on OneDrive - Can this be done (1 Viewer)

[561414]

George, what do you hope to achieve with this? I don't understand. I came to recommend my alternative, I talked about its benefits, I posted a sample and even a tutorial.

 

[Pat Hartman]

@561414 Firebase isn't actually an alternative since it is not SQL based and you don't use an ODBC driver to link it to Access. Doesn't mean you can't use it. Just means that it is not equivalent and requires major changes to an existing app.

My POINT though was that nothing is free. If someone offers you "free" software, YOU are the product, guaranteed. Otherwise, how does the developer feed his family? On "free" food? Maybe his landlord offers "free" rent. If so, I'd be looking for hidden cameras While an individual may choose to take the risk of using "free" software, companies are rarely willing since their data is too valuable a company asset.

George was replying to your justification of Google and other companies who offer "free" stuff using your data and you not having a choice. You do have a choice. Don't download the "free" stuff. Don't support the "free" model.

 

[GPGeorge]

Once again, the problem is the lack of

George, what do you hope to achieve with this? I don't understand. I came to recommend my alternative, I talked about its benefits, I posted a sample and even a tutorial.

I took some time to consider your question, what do I hope to achieve?

You not only talked about the benefits of the supposed alternative, but you included arguments that are questionable, such as the "choice" to use the free software or not use it. I get it, if you want to use it, you have committed to letting Google, et al use your data. It's part of the original choice. But, as I said, you do make that original choice, use it or not. You can't bypass that step and go straight to, "I have to agree to share my data."

What I hoped to achieve was making it clear that there are two sides to the proposition. And that simply asserting "you have no choice" comes with at least one or two assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Going back to the original question, the OP wanted to know about putting Access on OneDrive to share Access. The OP did not ask for alternatives to Access. I get it, there are alternatives and some of them do have advantages. But going from that to "Move everything to a third-party site" where both the database and the interface have to be recreated in new tools, is a looong stretch for a simple departmental level accdb. If it makes sense to an Access user to do that, fine. However, the OP gets to make that call.

 

[NauticalGent]

George Young from DAAUG is speaking to this possibility on the Access Dev Con as we speak.

'purt near impressive

 

[561414]

Firebase isn't actually an alternative since it is not SQL based and you don't use an ODBC driver to link it to Access. Doesn't mean you can't use it. Just means that it is not equivalent and requires major changes to an existing app.

Firebase may not be SQL-based, but it can still be used as an alternative to syncing data with MS Access. While it may require some changes to an existing app (and that's the idea, in exchange for worldwide access), that doesn't mean it's not possible to use or hard to do. The methodology for handling unbound forms in Access can be applied to synchronize data with Firebase using its REST API. So, it is a viable option for developers, so much so there are CRUD operations in my sample file with minimal code usage. I don't know what you qualify as a "major change", but unbound forms and string manipulation can be done natively in Access, so it is not major. I anticipate your "RAD" argument, but you should complain with Microsoft, not with my alternative, which I had to look for because it is not done by Access natively.

My POINT though was that nothing is free. If someone offers you "free" software, YOU are the product, guaranteed. Otherwise, how does the developer feed his family? On "free" food? Maybe his landlord offers "free" rent. If so, I'd be looking for hidden cameras While an individual may choose to take the risk of using "free" software, companies are rarely willing since their data is too valuable a company asset.

Yes, there is often a trade-off involved when using free software, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad or that users are being exploited. Many companies offer free software as part of their business model, leveraging data and other monetization strategies. It's not fair or knowledgeable to assume that using free software means you are automatically the product. I actually saw an update from you where you were offering free software a couple days ago, do I have to assume I am your product, guaranteed? Firebase, as of today, offers the free tier that can be used without any monetary cost, making it a practical choice for many developers.

George was replying to your justification of Google and other companies who offer "free" stuff using your data and you not having a choice. You do have a choice. Don't download the "free" stuff. Don't support the "free" model.

While it's true that individuals have a choice to not download or support "free" software, it's not a realistic option for everyone, especially in a professional context. Companies often have specific requirements and constraints, and choosing not to use "free" software may not be a viable or practical choice for them. It's important to consider the context and the specific needs of different users and organizations. In the case of Access, being in the package of Office, which includes the much more popular Excel and Word applications, it becomes free for a lot of them. Do not twist what I just said, many companies get their license because of Excel and Word, not Access. It is important to mention that all I'm seeing is your unfounded disqualification when, I suspect, you have not even developed with my alternative. Do you see me disqualifying your alternatives?

You not only talked about the benefits of the supposed alternative, but you included arguments that are questionable, such as the "choice" to use the free software or not use it. I get it, if you want to use it, you have committed to letting Google, et al use your data. It's part of the original choice. But, as I said, you do make that original choice, use it or not. You can't bypass that step and go straight to, "I have to agree to share my data."

No, George. I have to mention post #14 again. You keep missing the point I was making there. But if you have issues understanding it, I can be more clear for you, read it again and answer me this: are you 100% sure that Windows has never kept track of your stuff while you were not aware of?

What I hoped to achieve was making it clear that there are two sides to the proposition. And that simply asserting "you have no choice" comes with at least one or two assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Post #14 again. Read it and answer me the previous question.

Going back to the original question, the OP wanted to know about putting Access on OneDrive to share Access. The OP did not ask for alternatives to Access. I get it, there are alternatives and some of them do have advantages. But going from that to "Move everything to a third-party site" where both the database and the interface have to be recreated in new tools, is a looong stretch for a simple departmental level accdb. If it makes sense to an Access user to do that, fine. However, the OP gets to make that call.

Who made you the sole decision-maker for the thread? The original question was about sharing Access on OneDrive, but also:

Can this be done and if not are there any other options that would work which would allow them to use the application both in the work place as well as at home?

Just because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of what's feasible for a simple departmental level accdb doesn't mean it's not a valid option. We're here to provide insights and options, not limit the reader's choices based on YOUR limited perspective. Your resistance to considering alternatives is what's questionable here. Are you or Pat receiving commission from the alternatives you so lawfully predicate with? Because this is suspicious.

 

[GPGeorge]

Firebase may not be SQL-based, but it can still be used as an alternative to syncing data with MS Access. While it may require some changes to an existing app (and that's the idea, in exchange for worldwide access), that doesn't mean it's not possible to use or hard to do. The methodology for handling unbound forms in Access can be applied to synchronize data with Firebase using its REST API. So, it is a viable option for developers, so much so there are CRUD operations in my sample file with minimal code usage. I don't know what you qualify as a "major change", but unbound forms and string manipulation can be done natively in Access, so it is not major. I anticipate your "RAD" argument, but you should complain with Microsoft, not with my alternative, which I had to look for because it is not done by Access natively.


Yes, there is often a trade-off involved when using free software, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad or that users are being exploited. Many companies offer free software as part of their business model, leveraging data and other monetization strategies. It's not fair or knowledgeable to assume that using free software means you are automatically the product. I actually saw an update from you where you were offering free software a couple days ago, do I have to assume I am your product, guaranteed? Firebase, as of today, offers the free tier that can be used without any monetary cost, making it a practical choice for many developers.


While it's true that individuals have a choice to not download or support "free" software, it's not a realistic option for everyone, especially in a professional context. Companies often have specific requirements and constraints, and choosing not to use "free" software may not be a viable or practical choice for them. It's important to consider the context and the specific needs of different users and organizations. In the case of Access, being in the package of Office, which includes the much more popular Excel and Word applications, it becomes free for a lot of them. Do not twist what I just said, many companies get their license because of Excel and Word, not Access. It is important to mention that all I'm seeing is your unfounded disqualification when, I suspect, you have not even developed with my alternative. Do you see me disqualifying your alternatives?


No, George. I have to mention post #14 again. You keep missing the point I was making there. But if you have issues understanding it, I can be more clear for you, read it again and answer me this: are you 100% sure that Windows has never kept track of your stuff while you were not aware of?


Post #14 again. Read it and answer me the previous question.


Who made you the sole decision-maker for the thread? The original question was about sharing Access on OneDrive, but also:

Just because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of what's feasible for a simple departmental level accdb doesn't mean it's not a valid option. We're here to provide insights and options, not limit the reader's choices based on YOUR limited perspective. Your resistance to considering alternatives is what's questionable here. Are you or Pat receiving commission from the alternatives you so lawfully predicate with? Because this is suspicious.

And now I'm done with this tiresome exchange. You have your opinions and seem not to be able to accept that there can be any others.

 

[561414]

And now I'm done with this tiresome exchange. You have your opinions and seem not to be able to accept that there can be any others.

I accept your opinion and those of the others, George. But all I see is disqualification from you both. With what purpose?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

While it's true that individuals have a choice to not download or support "free" software, it's not a realistic option for everyone, especially in a professional context. Companies often have specific requirements and constraints, and choosing not to use "free" software may not be a viable or practical choice for them.

I will not criticize other parts of this discussion. I will only address a VERY NARROW consideration here. Please don't take this as a general slam of any points being made in the development of this discussion.

In corporate risk management, free-ware is extremely high-risk - because there is no leverage to get bugs fixed. For example, when I worked with the U.S. Navy, there was an iron-clad requirement that we avoid free-ware and self-maintained open-source code. The Navy's risk management team identified freeware as a "HIGH" risk (they usually only did LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH) because there was no one "on the hook" to maintain the product. The rule was that if any product was unsupported, the project that contained that product could not be legally deployed. (Civil, not criminal legality.) It would have violated government procurement regulations and thus would have been a contract violation.

Microsoft products? No big deal - they were known to have a solid support team. HP? They had "skin in the game" to maintain their software products. ORACLE? Piece of cake because they had a reputation to uphold. But software developed by Fly-by-Night Enterprises? If they pulled up stakes or folded, whatever they wrote for us was a ticking time-bomb because software is known to be vulnerable to imperfections.

Heck, even now with MSFT software, one good Windows patch and this forum gets a dozen or so posts about something that doesn't work right any more. And THAT is Windows vs. Office - two Microsoft products. Because of an old lawsuit involving IBM in the mid-20th century, all software contracts had to be bid as open competition, which is why we had both Windows and UNIX (and OpenVMS, for a while) co-resident in a data operations center. The word of the decade (or two) was "interoperability." I could tell you horror stories, but I won't. I'll just say that we often spent more time verifying the solidity of a vendor's support facilities than we did in verifying that the product would actually do what we wanted. (See also DIHMRS.)

Therefore, when dealing with corporate risk management issues, freeware not only isn't free. In long-term cost projections, it is often the most expensive of all options because if free-ware breaks, you have to replace it and the ripple-effect of component replacement is potentially a massive rewrite. Depending on the formality of the corporate risk-management policy, "free" may be unacceptable, and knowing your company's policy is absolutely mandatory.

 

[561414]

Yeah, I absolutely agree, Doc. Navy operations are a matter of national security, a good candidate for the extreme of the line. You don't want to use software nobody will be responsible for in such a case. There are so many other companies across the globe that can't afford to have such a high standard though.

To add to that particular position, the alternative I posted, or "supposed alternative", as George said it was, or not even an alternative, as Pat said it is, is free... for their testing plan, which most Access developers will find more than enough, but it's backed by a huge giant tech, with a good number of security standards behind and I'm pretty sure a good number of governments in the entire world are using it, otherwise they probably wouldn't care about having so many standards, as opposed to __________.

George, if you're still around, I forgot to quote you specifically for this: "Move everything to a third-party site" where both the database and the interface have to be recreated in new tools,". My, I didn't say that in this thread, my position was in favor of Access as frontend and Firebase as backend and the sample I posted requires only Access, the backend is a canvas where Access is going to paint, you don't need to touch Firebase for anything other than creating the blank project. I guess you didn't read the thread after all. To any reader who read that, I never said that.

 

[KitaYama]

@561414 your suggested solution seemed very intersting to me. I sent a mail to our IT team and the developers who work on our databases, explained your suggestion and also a link to this thread.
They replied me with only one sentence.

"Can you guarantee they are continuing this service next year too?"

While I understand your intention, but I don't think any organization (at least with our size) will move to a free service. Because you can't be sure when they change their policy, service contents, rules or others. Just imagine two years from now, if for some reason they closed this service.
What will happen to our data?
So I really think you may want to think about what Pat, George, Doc or others say about a free service.

list of services that google has discontinued - Google Search

Yet, I'm personally very interested in your suggestion. If you open a new thread and explain this solution in more details, I bet there are a lot of members who will benefit your experience on this (me, one of them).

To any reader who read that, that is a lie, I never said that.

Man, you're too angry. I don't think it's appropriate to call someone "Liar" on a public forum. (or at least I won't, specially to someone like George)
Maybe Misunderstood, Mistaken, Mixed up or anything else. But Liar.....

 

[561414]

@KitaYama Reflecting on that, it did look like an angry response. I edited it.

Unfortunately, I'm not affiliated to Firebase, so I can only speak by the number of developers that use the service and it's going up because database as a service is currently a trend and many employeers are adopting it right now. But even if It's a trend, Firebase is a mature platform that I've only used for two years, they recently had an update and it got easier to use. I can not tell you whether they'll be around the next year or two, but by the numbers I'd say it's pretty likely they'll stay for a good time. By the way, it's used mainly with JavaScript, .Net and I believe Python SDKs, the alternative I posted uses only their REST API. That's another thing to consider. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, since there's an SDK for .Net, there's a good possibility that an Addin can be created to make it more robust from Access.

As for the free software thing, the part that is free is the fact that its entry quota, which is meant for testing and attracting customers, is generous enough that most Access developers could benefit from it without paying. But you can still pay for it if you have the need of extra traffic or storage, or capabilities. I did not consider they would only address the "free software" part of my post, I would have expected a different kind of thread, but it's not the first time they derail my intention of helping the community.

I guess I'll make a thread about the concept, because I didn't address other things that can be done with it.

 

[KitaYama]

I can only speak by the number of developers that use the service and it's going up because database as a service is currently a trend and many employeers are adopting it right now

I really don't think the number of users has anything to do with its sustainability.
Once Google + had more users than any other on-line service. But it's now closed.
Because the trend moved to Facebook, then Twitter and now Instagram and TickTok. And tomorrow maybe something else.

but it's not the first time they derail my intention of helping the community.

Nobody doubts about your capabilities and good intentions. I've seen a lot of good contents in your posts, bookmarked them for future and have used some part of it in my database. What you see as attacks, may be something different. I mostly think it's the way you say your thought that has caused some conflicts.
English is my third language. I've had very bitter experiences in other forums. there's been times that I posted something and didn't meant any harm, but the way I expressed it in English, wasn't taken as I meant it. I'm not in a position to advice anyone, but personally I think sometimes taking a step back and seeing the whole scenario, shows us the source of the problem.

I guess I'll make a thread about the concept, because I didn't address other things that can be done with it.

Looking forward to it. It's always good to be in touch with new technologies. I thank you for the time you'll put on it.

 

[isladogs]

@KitaYama
Your IT department made a very important point.
Google has something of a track record for dropping products which no longer suit their business aims.
I briefly dabbled with the predecessor to Firebase which was arbitrarily discontinued in favour of a 'new & better product'.
Whatever the merits of Firebase, it was enough to deter me from going further down that route.

@561414
I've stayed out of this thread until now as it strayed completely away from the OP's original question.

I agree with Kitayama's comment. Your initial post raised some interesting points but since then you had become increasingly dogmatic and have begun criticising others. As well as poor forum etiquette, you are doing your 'cause' no good at all.

In another forum, (I believe it was) you who wrote (user name @Edgar)

By doing that, I ensure that I am well-informed and avoid confusing and misleading information presented by individuals who claim expertise online. They don't like me though

If you aren't liked, perhaps its not because you are 'well informed' but for other reasons.

 

[KitaYama]

Your IT department made a very important point.

@isladogs Later I received another mail from them. It was a very long list of why they will never use a free service/software. Translating all of it is hard but the top points were :

• Risk in Sustainability
• You don’t own the content
• Reputable brands do not guarantee anything
• Lack of Support and Accountability
• Can be difficult to transfer elsewhere
• More chances of losing your data
• Lack of warranty.
• Developer Loses Interest
• Intellectual Property Right Issues
• Integration Challenges
• Integration and cross-platform support

They also attached a pdf that was taken out of their rule book.
It was clearly said :
No Freeware by any means. The company pays for whatever they need.

 

[isladogs]

That was another excellent response from your IT department.
In many ways, it also covers many of the reasons why independent developers find it so difficult to sell applications to large organisations.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There are so many other companies across the globe that can't afford to have such a high standard though.

As companies grow, the strength of their standards grow with them. Freeware in a Mom-and-Pop Shop is economically quite logical, but it quickly becomes anathema in a company expanding and trying to advertise their reliability.

 

[GPGeorge]

Yeah, I absolutely agree, Doc. Navy operations are a matter of national security, a good candidate for the extreme of the line. You don't want to use software nobody will be responsible for in such a case. There are so many other companies across the globe that can't afford to have such a high standard though.

To add to that particular position, the alternative I posted, or "supposed alternative", as George said it was, or not even an alternative, as Pat said it is, is free... for their testing plan, which most Access developers will find more than enough, but it's backed by a huge giant tech, with a good number of security standards behind and I'm pretty sure a good number of governments in the entire world are using it, otherwise they probably wouldn't care about having so many standards, as opposed to __________.

George, if you're still around, I forgot to quote you specifically for this: "Move everything to a third-party site" where both the database and the interface have to be recreated in new tools,". My, I didn't say that in this thread, my position was in favor of Access as frontend and Firebase as backend and the sample I posted requires only Access, the backend is a canvas where Access is going to paint, you don't need to touch Firebase for anything other than creating the blank project. I guess you didn't read the thread after all. To any reader who read that, I never said that.

I am willing to stand corrected. Point me to the page(s) on the Firebase website describing the ability to connect Access to a firebase database. Does it require an API? Does it use ODBC?

 

[Pat Hartman]

It does not use ODBC. That was part of my original problem. It requires unbound forms and all that entails so it isn't just a swap the BE type of project. Using ODBC, I can swap my BE among any RDBMS for which I have a driver with NO changes to the FE. THAT is the power of ODBC.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I wish @561414 had presented this in its own thread, it could be very useful for those of us who are looking for a web solution without forcing Microsoft Access to do something it was never intended to do. I doubt Firebase was ever aimed at the Enterprise level developer, it looks like a quick way to develop web apps that are beyond the limitations of Microsoft Access, which is a good thing.

 

[NauticalGent]

Poor SnowFlake (OP) probably regrets asking the question now, he/she hasn't commented since!