Updating a BE and FE on a disconnected computer

[ChipperT]

I have a split database that is dispersed to disconnected users (not on a common network, so the BE resides on their workstation). I split it to make it easier to maintain the FE even though each user has both the FE and BE locally on their own computer. I know there are autoupdaters out there that make it easy to distribute new FEs for network users, but is there an easy way for me to do the same for disconnected users, just distributing the FE?

 

[vbaInet]

Having the FE and BE locally completely defies the use of having a FE and BE. The BE should be in a central location. Unless maybe you have a way of synchronise their BEs?

 

[ChipperT]

The BEs are maintained centrally and the remote users cannot update the data - it is only a data store for them. Updates to the datastore are infrquent and requires an update only once or twice a year. Presently that is done by sql scripting.

 

[boblarson]

If you have the backend in the same folder as the frontend then you can use this code (provided generously by Access MVP Armen Stein) to automatically relink when you give them a new frontend. It just checks to see if the database is there and if not then it will ask where it went but if it is still there it just connects.

 

[ChipperT]

Thanks Bob. Actually I have the relinking working well. The BE is in a different folder than the FE. In some cases there are two users at a remote site so there the BE is on a mapped drive or a shared drive, an the application relinks on startup. What I am looking for is an easy way to deploy new frontends when changes are made, new reports, etc. The Windows pacakging works well for initial deployment but is cumbersome for subsequent updates as the user must remove the previous version.

 

[HiTechCoach]

Having the FE and BE locally completely defies the use of having a FE and BE.

I have to totally disagree with this.

The location of the back end has nothing to do with why you should split a database. into into application and data. It is just good software design.

See this:

Split your Access database into application and data

 

[HiTechCoach]

Thanks Bob. Actually I have the relinking working well. The BE is in a different folder than the FE. In some cases there are two users at a remote site so there the BE is on a mapped drive or a shared drive, an the application relinks on startup. What I am looking for is an easy way to deploy new frontends when changes are made, new reports, etc. The Windows pacakging works well for initial deployment but is cumbersome for subsequent updates as the user must remove the previous version.

I agree that the Access package and deploy wizard is not good for updates.

It is possible to use a web server. I use a launcher app that checks a web site for updates before launching the actual front end. This can be used to replace remote front ends and back ends.

 

[vbaInet]

I have to totally disagree with this.

The location of the back end has nothing to do with why you should split a database. into into application and data. It is just good software design.

See this:

Split your Access database into application and data

I was referring to the context in which the OP had them split. Not in a wider context. I know it's best practice for to have split ends.

 

[ChipperT]

I was referring to the context in which the OP had them split. Not in a wider context. I know it's best practice for to have split ends.

I have no idea why you would say that. I separated the data and the UI for perfectly good reasons. There are many other reasons as well.

 

[vbaInet]

I made that comment before you justified your implementation. So igore that

 

[boblarson]

I made that comment before you justified your implementation. So igore that

I would say that it is a good idea to run a split database always (even if it is a single user), regardless of implementation. It is definitely safer for not losing data or even the other objects to corruption.

 

[HiTechCoach]

I made that comment before you justified your implementation. So igore that

You said:

Having the FE and BE locally completely defies the use of having a FE and BE.

I am really curious how does every having the FE and BE locally in any way defies the use of having a FE and BE?

What am I missing?