Invalid operation after database split fe/be (1 Viewer)

[deanvilar]

am already set to publish my MDB but I want to have a FE and BE application so that even 2 - 3 users can access them ....

I tried to split it manually, but no avail... got an error RUN-TIME ERROR '3219'; INVALID OPERATION and highlighted my recordset ... (attached image)

do I need to connect manually by code my tables to have it working? if so, can you please...please show me how... thanks

 

[pr2-eugin]

Try

RST[COLOR=Red][B].Fields("[/B][COLOR=Blue]yourFieldName[/COLOR][B]")[/B][/COLOR]

 

[deanvilar]

still the same error sir Paul

 

[pr2-eugin]

Unfortunately. Yes. You can use any of the following valid methods to access the fields in the Recordset..

RST[B][COLOR=Red].Fields("[/COLOR][/B]yourFieldName[B][COLOR=Red]")[/COLOR][/B]
[COLOR=SeaGreen]' Or[/COLOR]
RST[COLOR=Red][B].Fields([/B][/COLOR]2[COLOR=Red][B])[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=SeaGreen] ' the Field Number.. This requires you to know the appropriate field in the recordset.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=SeaGreen]' Or[/COLOR]
RST[COLOR=Red][B]![/B][/COLOR]yourFieldName

 

[pr2-eugin]

Which line are you exactly getting the error?

 

[spikepl]

With linked tables, replace dbOPenTable with dbOPenDynaset. Also, with DYnaSet, you cannot use .Seek but need to use .FindFirst. Look it up in the help file.

And as pr2-eugin asks: which line gives you error? You should always supply theat information - we are not mind readers.

 

[deanvilar]

Sir Paul am getting the error here:

Set RST = db.OpenRecordset("tblEmployees", dbOpenTable)

sir spikepl i'll try as well ... thank you

 

[deanvilar]

sir spikepl error: OPERATION IS NOT SUPPORTED FOR THIS TYPE OF OBJECT.

RST.Index = "Primarykey"

 

[pr2-eugin]

This link might be of interest to you.

 

[deanvilar]

thank you sir paul, ill read this many thanks

 

[gemma-the-husky]

sir spikepl error: OPERATION IS NOT SUPPORTED FOR THIS TYPE OF OBJECT.

as spike just said, with linked tables, you cannot set an index and use the seek method

you have to use findfirst (and other find variations), which is a slightly different syntax

 

[deanvilar]

thank you for the reply @gemma, now am reading what sir paul gave me ... and too bad i think i need to adjust everything =(