Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Post by Dean » Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:48:17


I know you can convert a database from Access 2003 to 97 easily but is
there anything that I should avoid doing in Access 2003 that might make
my database incompatible with Access 97?

Many thanks, Dean...
 
 
 

Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Post by Lyle Fairf » Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:04:17


Starting.

 
 
 

Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Post by Allen Brow » Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:07:06

Dean, if you have Access 97 as well as 2003, I would agree with Lyle that it
would be better to use 97 to develop this database. I actually did a small
one earlier this year using 2003 and converting back at the end: if I had
that time again, I would do the whole thing in A97.

It kinda depends what functionality you use, but avoid stuff like:
- Conditional Formatting
- the Undo event of the form.
- OpenArgs for OpenReport.
- VBA functions such as Replace() and Split().
- ADO-specific code (especially DDL)

If you do convert back, decompile first. Avoid any references other than
VBA, Access and DAO. After conversion to A97, you will still need to change
your DAO reference to 3.51. (A2003 doesn't make that change for you.)

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.
 
 
 

Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Post by David W. F » Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:37:25

"Allen Browne" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in



Me.Undo exists in A97. But the OnDirty event does not exist.


One could easily port that code for A97.


Much of it would still work with ADO1.5


This strikes me as a waste of time, as all the compiled code will be
discarded, anyway, during the conversion.


A2K did.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.yqcomputer.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Post by Allen Brow » Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:29:40

In line.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.





Not the Undo METHOD (so you can undo the record), but the Undo EVENT of the
Form (i.e. where Access notifies you that the record has been reset.)

There was a KB article on how to simulate an undo event for the form, but it
did not work reliably. A2000 introduced a true Form_Undo event that works.



Yes, if one is aware of the issue.


Yes, I did not word that clearly. I was thinking of the new JET 4 features
that don't work in the query interface or in DAO in later versions of
Access, so have to be executed via ADO.


You may be right: I don't recall getting caught when converting back to 97.
But I have been caught several times with a database I edited in A2003 and
the user is using A2000. The silent discard is not reliable, and actually
does corrupt the database and introduce bloating and hard-to-trace bugs. The
suggestion is to force the discard before converting back to any previous
version, but I have no evidence that this would be productive for a
conversion back to 97.


Yes, that's the way I remember it also, so I was surprised that A2003 did
not.
 
 
 

Developing in Access 2003 for Access 97 users

Post by David W. F » Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:24:18

"Allen Browne" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in






You're right -- you did say EVENT.

[]


I know of a grand total of ONE thing that has to be done in ADO, and
that's UserRoster. What else is there?

Certainly, items that are specific to Jet 4 couldn't be back ported
to A97, anyway, so those are rather irrelevant to the basic ADO
question.


I decompile enough during regular development that I don't think it
necessary when converting to a new version, but I don't use any MDB
version after 2000.

In any event, converting to A97 would definitely have to discard all
the code, as everything is different, and I believe that was the
scenario this thread is about.


Two steps forward, one back, it seems.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.yqcomputer.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.yqcomputer.com/