Re: Access vs SQL
> ¤ No actually here is what aatcbbtccctc@ya hoo.com said:[color=blue]
> ¤
> ¤ "Access is *not* a database."
> ¤
> ¤ He didn't say that an .mdb is not an Access file. My comments here and
> ¤ earlier have been part of the discussion..
>
> Yes he did:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>[/color][/color]
> I suspect your mistake is in believing that an MDB file is an *Access*
> file. It is not - it is a *Jet* file, in which Access is able to store
> its own things (in addition to the standard Jet things).
> <<[/color]
My comments have all pertained to the "Access is *not* a database" remark.
[color=blue]
> For the last time...Access can operate on the database file directly. It
> is not a wrapper.[/color]
Well, for the last time, yes Access does wrap the JET data and provides a UI
to that JET data. Microsoft say so much in the article I've provided.
[color=blue]
>Does Word wrap a .doc file? Does Excel wrap an .xls file?[/color]
Your comments keep coming back to does the product wrap it's own file
extension format file. I have not framed my comments in this way, so I
don't believe we are discussing the same thing. As I've said over and over:
Access's .mdb file format contains a JET database as well as Access specific
items. In this way, Access wraps the JET database. This is the reason you
can programmaticall y connect to an .mdb file and use the JET database
contained within it with standard JET DAO's.
[color=blue]
> As I questioned in my other post, do we now call .doc and .xls OLE
> Structure Storage files instead
> of Word and Excel files because that is the API which is employed?[/color]
I don't know. Do we? My point has been all along, that most of the time
(99.9%), you can call it whatever you like. But when splitting hairs, you
should call it what it is. Now, is OLE a data storage paradigm? No, it is
a broad term regarding a set of interfaces that some object needs to provide
to be OLE compliant. An apple can be bitten into and so can a bananna, but
that doesn't make them both apples.
[color=blue]
> You may want to consider other sources beyond that article. Especially if
> you're simply going to
> ignore the fact that the Jet Database Engine provides only a subset of the
> functionality that is
> supported for an Access database. That is a technical fact that cannot be
> disputed.[/color]
You're absolutely correct and it has been my point all along! I haven't
been ignoring this, it's been what I've been saying. An Access file
contains a JET database as well as other Access-specific items and wraps it
all up into an .mdb. The article is Microsoft's documentation on JET. What
better article is there to discuss JET?
> ¤ No actually here is what aatcbbtccctc@ya hoo.com said:[color=blue]
> ¤
> ¤ "Access is *not* a database."
> ¤
> ¤ He didn't say that an .mdb is not an Access file. My comments here and
> ¤ earlier have been part of the discussion..
>
> Yes he did:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>[/color][/color]
> I suspect your mistake is in believing that an MDB file is an *Access*
> file. It is not - it is a *Jet* file, in which Access is able to store
> its own things (in addition to the standard Jet things).
> <<[/color]
My comments have all pertained to the "Access is *not* a database" remark.
[color=blue]
> For the last time...Access can operate on the database file directly. It
> is not a wrapper.[/color]
Well, for the last time, yes Access does wrap the JET data and provides a UI
to that JET data. Microsoft say so much in the article I've provided.
[color=blue]
>Does Word wrap a .doc file? Does Excel wrap an .xls file?[/color]
Your comments keep coming back to does the product wrap it's own file
extension format file. I have not framed my comments in this way, so I
don't believe we are discussing the same thing. As I've said over and over:
Access's .mdb file format contains a JET database as well as Access specific
items. In this way, Access wraps the JET database. This is the reason you
can programmaticall y connect to an .mdb file and use the JET database
contained within it with standard JET DAO's.
[color=blue]
> As I questioned in my other post, do we now call .doc and .xls OLE
> Structure Storage files instead
> of Word and Excel files because that is the API which is employed?[/color]
I don't know. Do we? My point has been all along, that most of the time
(99.9%), you can call it whatever you like. But when splitting hairs, you
should call it what it is. Now, is OLE a data storage paradigm? No, it is
a broad term regarding a set of interfaces that some object needs to provide
to be OLE compliant. An apple can be bitten into and so can a bananna, but
that doesn't make them both apples.
[color=blue]
> You may want to consider other sources beyond that article. Especially if
> you're simply going to
> ignore the fact that the Jet Database Engine provides only a subset of the
> functionality that is
> supported for an Access database. That is a technical fact that cannot be
> disputed.[/color]
You're absolutely correct and it has been my point all along! I haven't
been ignoring this, it's been what I've been saying. An Access file
contains a JET database as well as other Access-specific items and wraps it
all up into an .mdb. The article is Microsoft's documentation on JET. What
better article is there to discuss JET?
Comment