Access and Citrix

[Rob]

I thought I posted this yesterday, but can't find it. So if this ends
up showing up twice, please forgive me.

I am an Access developer and have done many Access databases in the
standard Front-end on the workstations, backend on the server
(over a LAN) but have never worked with Access over Citrix, though
that situation is coming up for me shortly.

Question: When you run the front-end on the Server, does Citrix clone
the front
end application database file for each user that connects or do they
all connect
to physically the same front-end file?
The real question here is: If user1 adds rows to a table that is
local in the
front-end will user 2 be able to see those records (assuming they have
the
proper table permissions)? If they were running in physically the
exact same
front-end file, they would be able to see each others records. If
Citrix gives
each user their own workspace and a copy of the front-end, they
wouldn't.
Any enlightenment you could provide would be appreciated.
Thanks

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Access and Citrix

"Rob" <sindle@ensco.c om> wrote in message
news:bd910ee.04 05260623.2d9e1f 49@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> I thought I posted this yesterday, but can't find it. So if this ends
> up showing up twice, please forgive me.
>
> I am an Access developer and have done many Access databases in the
> standard Front-end on the workstations, backend on the server
> (over a LAN) but have never worked with Access over Citrix, though
> that situation is coming up for me shortly.
>
> Question: When you run the front-end on the Server, does Citrix clone
> the front
> end application database file for each user that connects or do they
> all connect
> to physically the same front-end file?[/color]

Unless you provide a means to give each user their own copy of the front
end on the Citrix server then they will all be opening the same physical
file and you risk the same corruption issues as if you were sharing a
common front end when NOT using Citrix.

If there is a table that all users need to see edits and insertions on then
it doesn't belong in the front end file.


--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Rob]

Re: Access and Citrix

I have a question. Who went back and connected all these threads for me?
I appreciate it. Is this a 'manual process?'
Rob

[Tony Toews]

Re: Access and Citrix

sindle@ensco.co m (Rob) wrote:
[color=blue]
>I have a question. Who went back and connected all these threads for me?
>I appreciate it. Is this a 'manual process?'[/color]

No one. Ah, you're posting from Google. It can take a few hours or even a day
before a posting appears on Google.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[Tony Toews]

Re: Access and Citrix

sindle@ensco.co m (Rob) wrote:
[color=blue]
>I thought I posted this yesterday, but can't find it. So if this ends
>up showing up twice, please forgive me.[/color]

And I responded to your previous thread.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[XMVP]

Re: Access and Citrix


"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hjqkqFdo3 3eU1@uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
>
> Unless you provide a means to give each user their own copy of the front
> end on the Citrix server then they will all be opening the same physical
> file and you risk the same corruption issues as if you were sharing a
> common front end when NOT using Citrix.
>[/color]

1. Multiple front ends defeat the purpose of Citrix.

2. The "shared" table in the front end will not cause corruption. Rather
record conflicts will result.

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Access and Citrix

"XMVP" <access_morons@ hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i7mdnfsqVt EI9Sjd4p2dnA@vn et-inc.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2hjqkqFdo3 3eU1@uni-berlin.de...[color=green]
> >
> > Unless you provide a means to give each user their own copy of the front
> > end on the Citrix server then they will all be opening the same physical
> > file and you risk the same corruption issues as if you were sharing a
> > common front end when NOT using Citrix.
> >[/color]
>
> 1. Multiple front ends defeat the purpose of Citrix.
>
> 2. The "shared" table in the front end will not cause corruption. Rather
> record conflicts will result.[/color]

This statement implies that all problems associated with sharing a front end are
network related. Is that what your saying? That may very well be true, but I
haven't seen anything definitive that states that. Even if true this would only
be the case if the shared front end file was located on the Citrix server's
local drives, no? We have certainly seen cases where Citrix/TS was being used
to run apps located on other servers in which case I see no difference at all
regarding sharing front ends.

There are many benefits to Citrix (Terminal Server) besides making application
distribution simpler. One can use standard "one front end per user" practices
and still realize these other benefits.

In addition (at least in my apps), there are situations with local tables, or
when modifying the SQL in a QueryDef where having more than one user in the same
file would cause "problems" even if not "corruption ".


--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Tony Toews]

Re: Access and Citrix

"XMVP" <access_morons@ hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Unless you provide a means to give each user their own copy of the front
>> end on the Citrix server then they will all be opening the same physical
>> file and you risk the same corruption issues as if you were sharing a
>> common front end when NOT using Citrix.
>>[/color]
>
>1. Multiple front ends defeat the purpose of Citrix.[/color]

Why? And so what? That solves corruption problems.
[color=blue]
>2. The "shared" table in the front end will not cause corruption. Rather
>record conflicts will result.[/color]

Rick never stated the shared table would cause corruptions.

Tony

--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[Rob]

Re: Access and Citrix

Tony Toews <ttoews@teluspl anet.net> wrote in message news:<gk0ab0pb1 b2l80f28m9k503u qinei7hg50@4ax. com>...[color=blue]
> sindle@ensco.co m (Rob) wrote:
>[color=green]
> >I thought I posted this yesterday, but can't find it. So if this ends
> >up showing up twice, please forgive me.[/color]
>
> And I responded to your previous thread.
>
> Tony[/color]

No, what I meant was. I posted item 6 in this thread from scratch.
Not attached to anything, just posted the original item. The next day
it was attached to items 1 through 5. I assume that the message board
software did it automatically based on my subject line. I guess that I
just supplied "Access and Citrix" which just happened to correspond to
the subject of a previous thread. That how it works?
(By the way I'm (essentially) a newbie at newsgroups because my work
environment is on a "standalone network" of sorts).
Thanks,
Rob

[Rick Brandt]

Re: Access and Citrix

"Rob" <sindle@ensco.c om> wrote in message
news:bd910ee.04 05280718.1cebc6 9c@posting.goog le.com...[color=blue]
> Tony Toews <ttoews@teluspl anet.net> wrote in message[/color]
news:<gk0ab0pb1 b2l80f28m9k503u qinei7hg50@4ax. com>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > sindle@ensco.co m (Rob) wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > >I thought I posted this yesterday, but can't find it. So if this ends
> > >up showing up twice, please forgive me.[/color]
> >
> > And I responded to your previous thread.
> >
> > Tony[/color]
>
> No, what I meant was. I posted item 6 in this thread from scratch.
> Not attached to anything, just posted the original item. The next day
> it was attached to items 1 through 5. I assume that the message board
> software did it automatically based on my subject line. I guess that I
> just supplied "Access and Citrix" which just happened to correspond to
> the subject of a previous thread. That how it works?
> (By the way I'm (essentially) a newbie at newsgroups because my work
> environment is on a "standalone network" of sorts).
> Thanks,
> Rob[/color]

Google groups thread by subject line which is actually a HORRIBLE way to do
it. If you post a relatively generic subject, it will get grouped with
posts from 10 years ago.


--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[XMVP]

Re: Access and Citrix


"Tony Toews" <ttoews@teluspl anet.net> wrote in message
news:a5jcb0lndt e6l4v7f0rv524kt netuoelgc@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> "XMVP" <access_morons@ hotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Unless you provide a means to give each user their own copy of the[/color][/color][/color]
front[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> end on the Citrix server then they will all be opening the same[/color][/color][/color]
physical[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> file and you risk the same corruption issues as if you were sharing a
> >> common front end when NOT using Citrix.
> >>[/color]
> >
> >1. Multiple front ends defeat the purpose of Citrix.[/color]
>
> Why? And so what? That solves corruption problems.[/color]

You're an amateur. Be quite.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >2. The "shared" table in the front end will not cause corruption.[/color][/color]
Rather[color=blue][color=green]
> >record conflicts will result.[/color]
>
> Rick never stated the shared table would cause corruptions.
>[/color]

< RUBBISH >

[Wayne Gillespie]

Re: Access and Citrix

On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:54:47 -0600, "XMVP" <access_morons@ hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>You're an amateur. Be quite.[/color]

You're illiterate. Be quiet.


Wayne Gillespie
Gosford NSW Australia