SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

[Lyle Fairfield]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

Rick Brandt wrote:[color=blue]
> Now give your user CheckBoxes for Yes/No fields, drop downs that show one
> thing while storing another.[/color]

Bit fields defaulted to Check Boxes. I did zip to achieve this
functionality. I haven't got to Drop Downs yet but I was encouraged
when I dragged a ListBox onto the page/grid and was able to enter the
bound field and data source (my terms not those used by Visual Studio).

[David W. Fenton]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

"Lyle Fairfield" <lylefairfield@ aim.com> wrote in
news:1140577271 .224165.303770@ g44g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com:
[color=blue]
> Yeah ... I know ... what about reports ... probably that's a March
> or April investigation. Maybe reports will be the fatal flaw.[/color]

Do all these magically created web pages work in all the good web
browsers (that is, anything but Internet Explorer)? Or are they
built of IE-only code? And can the results be run on something other
than ASP.NET, which is proprietary to Microsoft, and doesn't run on
anything but Windows servers (which no one in their right mind
should be choosing for production, Internet-facing websites)?

Or does all this development with these super-duper tools tie you
down to Microsoft products on the server side?

I have not as yet had a client ask me to put their application on a
web site (they often ask if they can access it via the web, by which
they mean remotely, not actually in a web browser), and that can be
easily implemented with Windows Terminal Server.

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

[David W. Fenton]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

"Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.not> wrote in
news:EKTKf.4247 9$6f2.821@trndd c02:
[color=blue]
> "Lyle Fairfield" <lylefairfield@ aim.com> wrote
>[color=green]
> > But right now I think Access is dead.[/color]
>
> I disagree with that. But it is clear that most of the changes to
> Access that the 'Softies have blogged are in end-user
> functionality.[/color]

But is that not simply a result of the order in which they are going
through the functionality, starting with the new aspects of the user
interface (which will be, by definition, the end-user part of the
equation), and leading up to the developer features?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'll do my db stuff on the web.[/color]
>
> You may have found good tools for web database stuff, but the web
> isn't an appropriate venue for many kinds of application -- if
> they don't "break" the capabilities we have now, but do enhance
> the user experience, Access'll be around, and useful, for a long
> time.[/color]

My bet is that these web pages Lyle is creating use proprietary,
IE-only coding that won't run in any other browser, which makes it
completely unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, since IE is not an
acceptable browser for use by anyone (and IE7 isn't going to change
that -- the problems are too fundamental to the design of IE and
Windows).
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Access is, as Tiger Williams would say, "Done
> > like Dinner!".[/color]
>
> We shall see. If so, it's been a good ride, and a longer one that
> you get with most software.[/color]

Many Access developers outgrow Access as their development platform
and move on. So, "done for Lyle" does not at all mean that it's no
longer a viable product serving a large and vital market. So far as
I can see, Microsoft seems to be investing quite a bit of effort
into making Access better, which suggests to me that they aren't
about to abandon it.

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

[David W. Fenton]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@ho tmail.com> wrote in
news:sUZKf.1555 1$2O6.685@newss vr12.news.prodi gy.com:
[color=blue]
> Lyle Fairfield wrote:[color=green]
>> With Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition (free) I dragged
>> an MS-SQL View onto a aspx page and voila ... it's there as a
>> datagrid, like a continuous form, paged, sortable ...each row
>> select-able, editable, delete-able ... time required ... about 5
>> seconds ... alternate line formatting? ... another few seconds.[/color]
>
> With any version of access I can link to a SQL Server view and
> just like that I've got a datagrid that I can page, scroll, sort,
> edit, each row selectable. Time required maybe 30 seconds. Do I
> have an application?
>
> Grids are cheap and easy. Almost no one would expose an Access
> datasheet to a user and call it an "applicatio n", but make a grid
> appear in a web browser and now it's a piece of magic.[/color]

Yes, grids are relatively trivial. I could knock out PHP code to do
the same thing in about 2 minutes, myself, with no drag and drop. It
wouldn't be beautiful, but it would display the contents of a data
table in tabular form.
[color=blue]
> Now give your user CheckBoxes for Yes/No fields, drop downs that
> show one thing while storing another. Master/Detail interfaces or
> the equivalent functionality of an OptionGroup frame. If these
> can be accomplished in a few minutes time with VS/Dot-Net then I
> must admit that I simply could not see it. Perhaps Visual Web
> Developer is quite different from full-blown Visual Studio.[/color]

Well, it's possible now with AJAX to develop much richer client-side
user interfaces for use in a browser. But those are created by
extending the standard HTML form widgets with JavaScript extensions
and event handlers. My bet is that if the tools Lyle is raving about
are implementing these features, they are *not* doing it in a
cross-browser compliant way. Look at the Exchange Server 2003
Outlook Web Access feature -- it uses AJAX techniques, but in a way
that works completely differently on IE than in other browsers. The
full-featured UI is available only with IE.

Tying your app to such a poor browser is a big mistake, in my
opinion, and you're also tying yourself (with ASP.NET) to Microsoft
server products and Windows-based hosting, which is generally more
expensive and less common than Apache/Linux-based hosting.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'm learning ... and fooled around for the better part of a day
>> with styles, appearance, authentication and insert.[/color]
>
> I do the same thing in my Ajax development. What would take a few
> minutes in Access takes hours in a web environment and that
> doesn't even take into account trying to make sure that the page
> works and looks correct in anything besides Internet Explorer.[/color]

Anyone with any sense starts writing their HTML/CSS/AJAX for Firefox
and then figures out what doesn't work right in IE and patches that
(IE has tons of terribly CSS incompatibiliti es, which MS has failed
to promise to fix in IE7).
[color=blue][color=green]
>> When I got those passable, I created a similar page for another
>> view ... time about 2 minutes; I simply changed my SQL string and
>> my field names and headers headers and my parameters.
>>
>> Tomorrow (maybe!) I'm going to experiment (or i'm going to watch
>> the Canadian Curling Teams at the Olympics) with ListBoxes ...
>> Totals ... conditional formats like red for negatives ... other
>> gnarly things ... I expect I'll be baffled by some ... but once I
>> solve them I'll be ... well I think I MAY be ... much faster than
>> developing in Access ... and I've been developing in Access for a
>> long, long time ... I think 1991 but I'm not sure Access was
>> around in 1991.[/color]
>
> You'll likely have a ball and learn a lot of new stuff (who
> doesn't like that?), but I doubt that you will ever approach the
> development speed that you could with Access.[/color]

Because browser-based apps are stateless, they require more screens
than Access does to accomplish the same tasks. And the widgets, even
with AJAX, are never going to be as rich as those available even in
Access 2.
[color=blue]
> Our company is switching all new development from
> Access/Delphi/RPG to Web apps using Ajax methods. I find it
> incredibly interesting and haven't been this enthused about coming
> to work in ages. Will any of my users benefit from this change?
> I extremely doubt it. Stuff I used to give them in minutes now go
> into the queue and when I get to them it will likely take a day or
> two for the easy stuff and a week or two for the more complicated
> stuff.[/color]

One of the things that's happening, though, is that the people who
do web development *do* find .NET to be very helpful, since it's far
more productive than the old methods, because the development
environment is so good (I hear). They are seeing large improvements
in productivity.

But they've never experienced Access-style RAD development, so they
don't realize how incredibly far they are from true quick
development of apps with a rich UI.
[color=blue]
> Now, if I were independent and my wages depended on getting the
> job done as quickly as possible so I can move onto the next one I
> most certainly would use Access unless there was something
> (technical or political) that forced me to do otherwise.[/color]

I don't understand why people think web-oriented development
techniques can possibly replace the speed and richness of a desktop
application's UI, with native OS widgets and bound data (rather than
being stateless).

And, as Larry said, many apps don't belong on the Web, so you're
actually crippling their functionality and making them harder to use
by converting them to be hosted in a web browser. As you say, this
is a very user-hostile thing to do, and I don't understand why
people think it's a good idea.

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

[Lyle Fairfield]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

David W. Fenton wrote:
[color=blue]
> My bet is that these web pages Lyle is creating use proprietary,
> IE-only coding that won't run in any other browser, which makes it
> completely unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, since IE is not an
> acceptable browser for use by anyone (and IE7 isn't going to change
> that -- the problems are too fundamental to the design of IE and
> Windows).[/color]

No, I don't use IE except for things like Winodws Update.
I am testing my pages in Firefox, K-Meleon and Netscape.

[ed.markell@gmail.com]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

David W. Fenton wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> My bet is that these web pages Lyle is creating use proprietary,
> IE-only coding that won't run in any other browser, which makes it
> completely unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, since IE is not an
> acceptable browser for use by anyone (and IE7 isn't going to change
> that -- the problems are too fundamental to the design of IE and
> Windows).
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/[/color]

David,

Visual Studio 2005 produces compliant HTML by default, at least in my
experience. Obviously the developer needs to deal with different
browsers, and the lack of standards compliance in IE is a definite
issue. But the built in controls provided by ASP.NET produce compliant
HTML, using VS 2005 and the .NET framework 2.0 (and the IDE flags bad
markup).

I'm not commenting on the time to develop required by these platforms
at all, just adressing that one issue.

--

Ed

[Lyle Fairfield]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

I've done some DropDowns now; they're about the same as Access
PullDowns; of course, they'll get easier as I become familiar with
them.
They let me filter my DataGrid easily and very quickly.

[David W. Fenton]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

"ed.markell@gma il.com" <ed.markell@gma il.com> wrote in
news:1140706473 .990566.207500@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com:
[color=blue]
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> My bet is that these web pages Lyle is creating use proprietary,
>> IE-only coding that won't run in any other browser, which makes
>> it completely unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, since IE is
>> not an acceptable browser for use by anyone (and IE7 isn't going
>> to change that -- the problems are too fundamental to the design
>> of IE and Windows).[/color]
>
> Visual Studio 2005 produces compliant HTML by default, at least in
> my experience. . . .[/color]

But it's styled by CSS, no? And IE6 is the least CSS-compliant
current browser out there.

Secondly, there's JavaScript (or, if VS is really stupidly designed,
JScript or VBScript), which is not cross-compatible between IE and
other browsers if the IE-only document model is used.

If it were just pure HTML, then it wouldn't be very useful at all,
so I can only presume that people are getting excited about VS
producing something a lot more elaborate than plain old
garden-variety HTML, and that means client-side scripting with
CSS/CSS2.
[color=blue]
> . . . Obviously the developer needs to deal with different
> browsers, and the lack of standards compliance in IE is a definite
> issue. But the built in controls provided by ASP.NET produce
> compliant HTML, using VS 2005 and the .NET framework 2.0 (and the
> IDE flags bad markup).[/color]

Eh? How does the client side of an application delivered in a
browser depend on the .NET framework? That's even worse if it does.

As to the "built in controls" what does that mean? Does something
have to be downloaded, or are these predefined classes that your
code can use to get extended functionality from the standard widgets
plus DHTML?
[color=blue]
> I'm not commenting on the time to develop required by these
> platforms at all, just adressing that one issue.[/color]

You haven't really said anything that convinces me that VS is
producing good cross-browser code. If it renders differently in IE
than in FireFox, then it's not properly compliant. Based on my
experience with Outlook Web Access in IE vs. other browsers, I'd be
very surprised if MS would sacrifice additional functionality just
so that the code was not IE-specific. It would go against the whole
organization of all MS product lines, which is to decommoditize
standards and force you to build into your apps dependencies on MS
technologies and products (unless you sacrifice functionality).

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

[Lyle Fairfield]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

David

It's not dependent on IE;
It doesn't run in IE, or on the client at all for that matter;
There is no browser code (except the Client Script one might find in
any HTML page, but this has nothing to do with the ASP.Net
application);
It's identical in form and substance on five browsers that I have
obswerved;
It can be styled by CSS but it also has its own visual properties, so
this is optional;
Nothing has to be downloaded;
It's great, fast, simple and powerful.

[ed.markell@gmail.com]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

David W. Fenton wrote:[color=blue]
> "ed.markell@gma il.com" <ed.markell@gma il.com> wrote in
> news:1140706473 .990566.207500@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com:
>[color=green]
> > David W. Fenton wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> My bet is that these web pages Lyle is creating use proprietary,
> >> IE-only coding that won't run in any other browser, which makes
> >> it completely unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, since IE is
> >> not an acceptable browser for use by anyone (and IE7 isn't going
> >> to change that -- the problems are too fundamental to the design
> >> of IE and Windows).[/color]
> >
> > Visual Studio 2005 produces compliant HTML by default, at least in
> > my experience. . . .[/color]
>
> But it's styled by CSS, no? And IE6 is the least CSS-compliant
> current browser out there.
>
> Secondly, there's JavaScript (or, if VS is really stupidly designed,
> JScript or VBScript), which is not cross-compatible between IE and
> other browsers if the IE-only document model is used.
>
> If it were just pure HTML, then it wouldn't be very useful at all,
> so I can only presume that people are getting excited about VS
> producing something a lot more elaborate than plain old
> garden-variety HTML, and that means client-side scripting with
> CSS/CSS2.[/color]

It produces HTML and javascript. CSS is up to the developer/designer.
It works across browsers just fine, although it is subject to the same
browser incompatibiliti es as any other web development process is.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > . . . Obviously the developer needs to deal with different
> > browsers, and the lack of standards compliance in IE is a definite
> > issue. But the built in controls provided by ASP.NET produce
> > compliant HTML, using VS 2005 and the .NET framework 2.0 (and the
> > IDE flags bad markup).[/color]
>
> Eh? How does the client side of an application delivered in a
> browser depend on the .NET framework? That's even worse if it does.
>
> As to the "built in controls" what does that mean? Does something
> have to be downloaded, or are these predefined classes that your
> code can use to get extended functionality from the standard widgets
> plus DHTML?[/color]

No downloads. I'm talking about built in server controls that are data
aware. So at design time you can bind data sources to controls (which
are very extensible), attach methods to button clicks and do other
RAD-like development tasks. When the page is actually requested by the
browser, standard HTML and Javascript is delivered to the browser.
Nothing MS-only.

It's not RAD like Access is RAD, but for a web developer it's a pretty
big advance.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I'm not commenting on the time to develop required by these
> > platforms at all, just adressing that one issue.[/color]
>
> You haven't really said anything that convinces me that VS is
> producing good cross-browser code. If it renders differently in IE
> than in FireFox, then it's not properly compliant. Based on my
> experience with Outlook Web Access in IE vs. other browsers, I'd be
> very surprised if MS would sacrifice additional functionality just
> so that the code was not IE-specific. It would go against the whole
> organization of all MS product lines, which is to decommoditize
> standards and force you to build into your apps dependencies on MS
> technologies and products (unless you sacrifice functionality).
>[/color]

Yeah, I've used OWA as well, so I know what you mean. But the fact that
code renders differently in IE vs other browsers is not due to the
development tool. I could write my code in Notepad, and it could still
render differently in IE as opposed to Firefox.

Older MS development tools attempted to bring some RAD properties to
web development, but FrontPage (at least back in the day, I don't know
what it does now) and Visual Interdev produced heavily IE specific
code, not to mention lousy HTML.

Visual Studio 2003 was a lot better; it didn't produce compliant markup
by default, but it was somewhat better behaved with non IE browsers. VS
2005 is a big step forward, IMO, though. It really is pretty browser
neutral. It produces compliant markup by default. I can drop server
controls onto my page, wire up a data source, and get cross browser
HTML just like that.

I'm an old Access developer who gradually moved to web applications,
and to be honest I can see a fair amount of Access 'philosophy' in
ASP.NET. Along with a lot of other things, of course, I'm not saying
it's merely an attempt to bring RAD practices to wweb development. But
going from Access to classic ASP was a real shocker. When I started
using ASP.NET, it was much closer to Access-style development.

I don't mean to sell it. As I said, it's not RAD like Access is RAD,
and if you're not doing web apps it's irrelevant anyway. But it's a
good tool, IMO, and something that actually allows you to support
clients who are using any platform or browser, not only Windows and IE.

--

Ed

[David W. Fenton]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

"ed.markell@gma il.com" <ed.markell@gma il.com> wrote in
news:1140779853 .678209.124070@ z34g2000cwc.goo glegroups.com:
[color=blue]
> It's not RAD like Access is RAD, but for a web developer it's a
> pretty big advance.[/color]

Well, sure. No one is disputing that.

The question is whether it gets even close to Access's level of RAD.
It doesn't, and the only reason it's a big success with web
developers is that they haven't a clue what the standard is for RAD
because they think Access is a toy.

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

[Lyle Fairfield]

Re: SQL Server Express: Anybody Using It?

Oh no, It's quite RAD.
But I don't think there's anything to worry about; Access Developers
should have no difficulty at all shifting over unless they never
learned ADO in which case the ADO.Net model is likely to be a mystery.

[Lyle Fairfield]

Visual Web Developer 2005 Express

It's Sunday so maybe a little truth in posting is in order here:

My opinions - findings - nothing in stone for sure:
1. Visual Web Developer 2005 Express (VWDE) is a great vehicle for me
to write my ASP-ADO Net apps;
2. VWDE's web controls are fast and great for flat file type tables;
3. I have not yet found anyway to have my pull downs start with the
selected value as the value of the field in my main table;
4. I have not yet found a way to set the selected day of the Calendar
Web Control to the value of a Date field in my main table.

Of course, it's quite possible that these "ways" exist and that I just
haven't been able to find them. It's also possible that they exist only
in the versions of Visual Web Developer 2005 that cost.

In the meantime, I can't do with VWDE what I can do with the old
ASP-ADO technologies, and certainly, it doesn't approach Access as a
RAD platform.

BTW, the Calendar control is, to my mind quite basic and disappointing.
The aspx web pages can take a long time for initial load. And I was
unable to use the Calendar Control without posting back to the server
every time I chose a date, causing, of course, the screen of flash and
be redrawn.

I'll state once again that all these problems may be due just to my
inexperience.