 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / Databases / July 2008JDBC thin Drivers for MS Access (no ODBC), any freeware, opensource available?
Hello I am looking for a JDBC thin driver for MS Access. Currently I found only commercial ones which costs around 300 to 500 USD. Does anybody know some freeware, opensource packages? many thanks regards Mark > I am looking for a JDBC thin driver for MS Access. Currently I found > only commercial ones which costs around 300 to 500 USD. Does anybody > know some freeware, opensource packages? I don't know what you mean by a "thin" driver, but to my knowledge the only available free JDBC driver for MS Access is the JDBC-ODBC driver, with Access as an ODBC source. Then of course there's the fact that Access is a very weak database engine. Very weak. Why not use Derby (Java DB) or Postgres or any of the host of actually worthy, free RDBMSes that actually work?  SignatureLew >Then of course there's the fact that Access is a very weak database engine. >Very weak. Why not use Derby (Java DB) or Postgres or any of the host of >actually worthy, free RDBMSes that actually work? Access is unsurpassed as a multi-database front end for application programming. It is not surprising that the underlying database engine may have been used without considering its weaknesses. Transferring an Access database to Derby but continuing to use Access as a front end is not easy and requires using the IBM DB2 ODBC drivers <http://profectus.com.au/ee_cloudscape.html>. The Postgres ODBC drivers may make the transition easier but Postgres mandates a client-server model that may not suit the OP. > >Then of course there's the fact that Access is a very weak database engine. > >Very weak. Why not use Derby (Java DB) or Postgres or any of the host of > >actually worthy, free RDBMSes that actually work? > > Access is unsurpassed as a multi-database front end for application > programming. I beg to differ. Access is one of the weakest front ends for multi- or single-database application programming that I've ever encountered. It's quirky, unstable, proprietary and non-portable. It requires that one use its own bizarre, non-compliant version of "SQL". It is not scalable. It doesn't support professional development practices very well at all. In short, it sucks. FoxPro and VB are both far better, and IDEs like NetBeans and Eclipse are superior to Access out of the box. -- Lew >> >Then of course there's the fact that Access is a very weak database engine. >> >Very weak. Why not use Derby (Java DB) or Postgres or any of the host of >> >actually worthy, free RDBMSes that actually work? >> >> Access is unsurpassed as a multi-database front end for application >> programming. I worded that very badly partly because I thought that "database front end" meant a tool used to examine databases like SQL Workbench or IBM Data Studio. A web search showed me that the term can mean anything at all. The multi-database part was because Access can be used with any database that has an ODBC driver. The "application programming" part was to distinguish it from tools that can be used to administer a database. >I beg to differ. Access is one of the weakest front ends for multi- >or single-database application programming that I've ever >encountered. It's quirky, unstable, proprietary and non-portable. It >requires that one use its own bizarre, non-compliant version of >"SQL". It is not scalable. It doesn't support professional >development practices very well at all. In short, it sucks. I agree with you according to your perfectly reasonable interpretation of what I wrote. >FoxPro and VB are both far better, and IDEs like NetBeans and Eclipse >are superior to Access out of the box. The tools you mention do not provide an easy way of modifying a database in a simple spreadsheet view, producing ad-hoc reports and giving non-programmers a reasonable chance of writing a query for themselves. Hence my response to Lew explaining why Access may have been chosen originally. Since the OP posted in a Java group we can assume he knows not to use Access VBA as a programming language. >>>> Then of course there's the fact that Access is a very weak database engine. >>>> Very weak. Why not use Derby (Java DB) or Postgres or any of the host of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was to distinguish it from tools that can be used to administer a > database. The current conversation is about using Java to connect to Access as a back end, so any benefits of Access as a front end are not relevant. SignatureLew > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many thanks regards > Mark The term "thin driver" was made up by Oracle to distinguish their type IV driver that implements their network protocol directly in Java from the type II driver that uses the underlying OCI client software available on the client machine. Since Access is not an actual server and thus does not implement aan actual network-level protocol it is not possible to create a type IV driver for Access. This leaves two options: a type I driver which wraps ODBC (as the standard JdbcOdbc driver does) or a type III driver which comes with a database proxy that does implement a network protocol and uses a type I driver (or another type III driver if you really want to make things complicated) to connect to the actual Access back end. If left with any choice you should ditch Access and use a proper database. If you want to go all Java you could look at Derby. I personally prefer using PostgreSQL (which comes with a type IV JDBC driver) for database applications big and small. Best regards, Silvio Bierman In article <1e90506c-e444-4e76-83f0-9329d4a9903f@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many thanks regards > Mark I'm not sure what you mean by "thin" driver, but you should be able to get by perfectly well with the one that's built into the JDK. I've been using it for quite some time with Access, and it doesn't require any DSN in the Windows ODBC control panel since you can use a relative or absolute path to the Access file in the jdbc.url. We use this: jdbc.drivers=sun.jdbc.odbc.JdbcOdbcDriver jdbc.url=jdbc:odbc:Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};DBQ=<path> jdbc.username and jdbc.password are optional. In the jdbc.url, you can use a complete path to the MDB file, or you can use one relative to user.dir. = Steve = SignatureSteve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama > I am looking for a JDBC thin driver for MS Access. Currently I found > only commercial ones which costs around 300 to 500 USD. Does anybody > know some freeware, opensource packages? Never heard of such. MS really should provide a decent JDBC driver for Jet. Arne >> I am looking for a JDBC thin driver for MS Access. Currently I found >> only commercial ones which costs around 300 to 500 USD. Does anybody [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Arne You're not holding your breath for that, are you??? AL >>> I am looking for a JDBC thin driver for MS Access. Currently I found >>> only commercial ones which costs around 300 to 500 USD. Does anybody [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You're not holding your breath for that, are you??? Nope. Arne > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many thanks regards > Mark hi, http://www.infozoom.de/en_jadoZoom.shtml it's free for none commercial use Which other driver do you found, including commercial? I ask cause atm. we have problems with the underlying MS-JET4.0- driver, it makes trouble since the last MS patch 8( thx gee Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.