read/write privilages

[splreece]

Morning all,

strange question with possibly an obvious answer of no, but thought id ask anyway.

There is a need to build a dbase suite that all users in the org can use... however.

Most users only have read access to the network drive therefore save locally only.

How do I go about launching a dbase on a network drive (so 1000+ people have access), if they only have read access.

The data goes between departments so needs to be in one location but is there a way if not opening the file direct, that I can launch something that feeds into it..... im new to dbases.

 

[Minty]

If your users need to write to the database then your Sysadmin guys are going to have to put the backend database in a place that they can write to.

If you have that many users I would be tempted to look at SQL Server or similar as your backend as it scales better for large numbers of concurrent users.

 

[CJ_London]

don't think you will be able to do that - you can have a user open a backend read only, but they still need write permissions to the folder in which it resides. The reason is that when the user opens the backend, a lock file is created in the same folder.

Also the maximum number of users that can open a db at any one time is 255 (and performance will almost certainly suffer before you reach that amount). If you really are working with this number of users, I suggest you need to migrate your backend to SQL server.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

you also do NOT want multiple users to access the front end of a database.

You want to split the database into a front end (code) and back end (data)

put the backend on a server folder, (with read/write access) and the front ends somewhere where the users can use it.

either on their own PC, or in a personal folder on the server, say. This way, only one user ever uses a copy of the front end. (again they need read/write access)

 

[gemma-the-husky]

1000 users, really?
you must have an IT department who know what they are doing, surely?

I just can't imagine a non-IT supported system with that number of users.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just to be clear, though...

You CAN at least develop the code on a stand-alone system with split front-end/back-end files and then up-convert the back-end when ready to deploy for multiple users. Access front ends are really nice for in-house workstation solutions with direct network access.

If this ever had to go web-enabled later, having the back-end in an SQL-based service (like My SQL, SQL Server, ORACLE, DB2, etc.) makes it easier because the hard part (data splitting) is already done. Further, there is nothing to stop you from having an Access in-house interface and a web out-house interface.

 

[jdraw]

How often is this info updated and by whom? If it's reference material that (1000) users need access to, then maybe an HTML page somewhere is what is needed?

We really don't understand the need/requirement. 1000 users with read access seems to say it's a fairly large organization and should have in-house IT expertise to do a review/analysis.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm with jdraw on this one. For a group that large, someone's management either hasn't got a clue (see: Dilbert comic strip) or someone is going off in his own direction in hopes of selling something to the boss as a career stepping stone. (Which isn't a reprehensible act either, so it is not a chastisement.)

If this is a fully supported corporate project for a 1000-user base, some fact is missing in this discussion.