Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Microsoft Access Team Blog

Get product announcements, tips and tricks, and news directly from the team @ Microsoft.
Access 12's new data engine

In the first Access blog post, I noted that Access 12 has a new database engine, but one derived from and very similar to the old Jet engine.  There were a bunch of questions & emails about what we did, why, and what it means, and it will take me more than one post to get through everything so please be patient.  In this post, I’ll cover what how the database engine fits into Access and how the new is different from Jet.  In future posts, I’ll talk about the Access data security model and other engine-level stuff.

Access differs from most other database authoring tools by storing everything in a single file.  When an Access author creates a database, the data and all the UI to work with that data all live in the same “.MDB” file.  This makes database installation very simple and enables end-users to work with Access databases in just the same way they use Excel spreadsheets or Word documents.  The engine provides 3 things to Access:  somewhere to put data, somewhere to put UI forms and reports (this is really just more data), and a query processor. 

In past versions, Access has used the Microsoft Jet database engine for data storage and query processing.  Jet is commonly thought of as being part of Access (or even as being “Access”) but in reality it is a Windows system component built by the SQL Server team.  Jet is unique in Microsoft because it provides both a data storage mechanism with a heterogeneous query processor.  This ability to run queries across a number of different data stores is a key reason people use Access, so it was super important for us to retain that ability going forward.  The SQL team is de-investing in Jet, and telling developers to code against SQL Server Express, but as it lacks the heterogeneous query functionality we needed, Access stuck with Jet. 

However, we needed to extend the Jet engine, so took a “private” copy of it, and have extended it for Office.  This means Access 12 no longer uses the system Jet engine, but is tightly bound to its own version.  The new version is fully backwards compatible with the old, so it will read & write files from earlier versions without any problems.  And since Access now can update the engine, developers can be confident that their Access apps will continue to work in the future.  Developers can still program against the Access engine, but since it isn’t part of the system any more, application users will need Access on their machines.  Developers targeting users without Access can continue to use the Jet engine as they have for years or can move to SQL Server Express. 

The primary feature we added to the new Access engine is support for “complex data”.  Complex data really isn’t so complex – it is simply a join in relational terms, or a repeating region in XLM terms.  What it brings to Access is full schema compatibility with Windows SharePoint Services lists.  This allows us to take SharePoint list data offline and to provide rich-client UI for SharePoint using Access.

In the application, complex data usually shows up as the ability to select more than one value for a field.  For example, imagine an Issues list with a column for “Assigned to:”.  In a single table you could only assign an issue to one person, and Access would provide a simple bound drop down list of people to Assign to.  With Complex data, you can (still looking at a single table) assign the issue to several people at the same time, and Access provides a drop down check list with the ability to select several people.  This works just the same way as it does in SharePoint.

Behind the scenes, Access does just the same thing a developer would when building the same functionality.  We create a table for the join information and create a many-to-many join (in this example between issues and people).  The Access database is fully normalized, and there’s no string manipulation monkey business or anything untoward going on – its just vanilla relational joins.  However, from the end-user’s point of view, it is far simpler than building the tables and setting up the relationships herself.  And since SharePoint doesn’t support joins, it maps directly with the SharePoint way of doing the same thing.

Developers, of course, are quite comfortable doing this by hand and can choose to either continue as they have or to use the new functionality.  For developers targeting SharePoint, it provides a mechanism for handling SharePoint’s complex data structures naturally. 

In the next post, I’ll talk about the changes to the Access security model, and how that flows through both the data layer and the rest of the application.

Posted: Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:24 PM by Erik Rucker
Filed under: ,

Comments

TC said:

My heart dropped when I read "multiple values for a single field". I thought wow, you've capitulated to all those beginners who don't understand about normalization! But it's really smart to implement that in a proper relational manner "behind the scenes". This means you don't loose the folks who are perfectly happy designing directly to the relational model.

Very exciting! Hanging out to hear more.
# October 14, 2005 1:27 AM

Robert MacLean said:

Bad move, very very bad move. From my days running hosting servers I remember that there are loads of web sites that run off Microsoft Access db's. I can think of very few providers that will install Access onto web servers just so people can use the new features. And can you imagine telling people that to use your desktop app (where I work we just released an application that stores it's offline data in Access) they need to purchase and install access as well.

I see the web market moving away from Access with this.

I just hope there is an option to save to the old format in the new Access 12.
# October 14, 2005 3:14 AM

TC said:

They wouldn't need Access - just Jet. If I understand him correctly, nothing has changed in that regard. It's just a /new version/ of Jet.

As for websites using Jet back ends: you're kidding me, right? Can you give an example of a public website using a Jet back-end? I just can't see that happening ...
# October 14, 2005 4:34 AM

Richard said:

JET must die. Just what we didn't need - yet another MS code-fork off JET. This type of code dupication is one of the bigest things wrong with Office. It's wrong in Office 12, and was it was wrong in all the previous versions too. All these code feifdoms within Microsoft create more confusion and waste in the user community than anyone seems to realise. IMHO, the right answer was to work tightly with MSDE.
# October 14, 2005 4:38 AM

TC said:

Jet is perfect for my main application. I specifically do not want the greater technical complexity and administrative overheads of SQL*Server etc. The "everything in one file" approach is a winner, in appropriate situations.
# October 14, 2005 6:03 AM

Ananda Sim said:

A lot of what "makes" Access *is* Jet. The tight binding of Jet to Access is what makes the Query Designer and the Expression service strong. Access without Jet is like SQL Server Enterprise Manager - SQL Server is itself a strong engine but Enterprise Manager is much weaker than Access Query Designer.

The reason why public low capacity websites use Jet is that it *isn't* SQL Server or MySQL.You don't need to set up TCP/IP connections to Jet or admin accounts or whatever. The file can just be ftped on and off, for offline edits and maintenance. dBase/Paradox is similar to .mdb, but .dbf isn't one file. And yes, there are public websites using Jet - as long as your Jet request from the webserver process is completed *before* the next Jet request in the queue, there is no problem with performance. Jet based websites can take 1 hit per second equivalent to 10-20 visitors a second because not every visitor is hitting the submit button at the same time.

Extending Jet to support triggers or audit trail loggin might be an idea, but extending it just to support Sharepoint is not, IMHO. There are so many portal / cms engines both MS and non MS.... What makes Sharepoint so important that it diverts resources from making Access better? SQL Server has strong points and Jet has strong but different points - there is no need to make them compete.

What Access needs right now or yesterday is deliverables to and from web formats. Notably transformations from Win32 type Access/VBA master-detail Forms and Reports to .NET Web Forms + SQL Server Report Builder type objects so that they can be generated from Access and hosted on IIS.

What Access needs now is lots of strong XML functionality - to read in XML text or XML text over HTTP. And to transform reports into good formatted .XML data and markup (XSL-FO?) to RTF, Acrobat format, XSL-FO, XHMTL+CSS stuff.

Just a thought: ADPs have been one move towards Client+Server and we need more. In COM, there has been VBA+Access and VB6. In .NET we have VB.NET but it's not nearly as RAD. Access 13 should be Access.NET
# October 14, 2005 8:10 AM

Robert MacLean said:

"They wouldn't need Access - just Jet. If I understand him correctly, nothing has changed in that regard. It's just a /new version/ of Jet."
Yes, but the new version of Jet *only* ships with the new version of Access ("but since it isn’t part of the system any more, application users will need Access on their machines."). So thus my understanding is for use of the new features you will need to install Access on the end users/webserver machines, if you are happy to use the old features only then you will use a save as function to save to an old format and use the "old" system version of jet.

"As for websites using Jet back ends: you're kidding me, right? Can you give an example of a public website using a Jet back-end?"
Thousands of websites, all little guys, the guys who do not run there own infrastructure but get shared hosting, the guys who make use of Access because it is cheaper than SQL Server. But since you asked for 1 example: http://www.gilbertestates.co.za
This is the kind of little guy that if they were going to develop there site now would likely end up paying extra every month to their hosting provider for a SQL database when they didn't really need it.
# October 14, 2005 8:24 AM

R said:

Like some of the others, I am completely underwhelmed by the changes in JET and Access.

I would be willing to bet that SharePoint will be used by fewer than 1% of Access users - why spend all that time on it?

I would be much more interested in RAD improvements, particularly with ADP formats and .NET integration. Will the new many-many features make it to ADPs also? Somehow I doubt it.

So far, I have been very, very depressed about what I am hearing about Access 12. It seems that there is very little of importance being added. If a made a list of my top 100 desired improvements for Access, not a single has been mentioned my Microsoft. There was no reason to upgrade to Access 2003, and now it looks like the same for Access 12. Please, please, please, give us some good news! Give us what the USERS want - take a look at the hundreds of requests for changes on UtterAccess - have you addressed even one of them???? Has ANYBODY asked for SharePoint integration??? (Answer: not even one). Please don't waste your time developing unnecessary features just to promote the Microsoft SharePoint agenda.
# October 14, 2005 1:24 PM

Geoff Franklin said:

There may not be many public sites running on Access data but lots of medium-small companies use the mdb format on their intranet and extranet sites because it's so simple to handle. They put the data together in Access on the desktop then squirt it up to the web page.

Speed, security and scalability aren't really an issue for them. I'm thinking of people like our local car showroom - they load a couple of dozen cars on their site each week and are delighted to get a hundred hits a day. They don't need SharePoint.
# October 14, 2005 3:02 PM

Albert D. Kallal said:

Well, first, the fact that the office dev team gets JET is great. As a developer, I think every year, or 2nd year, we get some rumor, or large IT department stating that JET is dead.

Now that the ms-access/office team owns jet, then any doubt about its future is removed.

With office owning JET, then the future is bright.

The office team has promised compatibility with JET, and I can’t see things working any other way. In fact, while I use the (2002-2003) format in access 2003, it actually defaults to a2000 format. So, tradition from the office people is rather good in terms of compatibility, and I don’t see anything that would prevent users from building, and saving data in a mdb format to be used for a web site. So, the ability to use, and work with a JET mdb file is preserved here.

>What Access needs now is lots of strong XML functionality

You know the last two versions have had much improved XML abilities. Further, there is the soap ad in tool kit for web services. So, as far as I can see, we are getting bits and pieces that allow us to move towards using web services. And, those SharePoint features are also a move in that direction.

I mean, I can’t believe that companies are still spending HUGE amounts of developers money to build applications that let you “move” a set of documents through a process. You got some product you are making, and a whole bunch of documents like spreadsheets, letters of correspondence, meeting notes, pictures of the product, specifications for the product etc are created, shared, and move through the company. It usually starts at the sales process, but regardless, you need something that lets every one go along for the ride. While some of these work flow systems do warrant a bunch of developers writing code, for a SURPRISING amount of systems, the ability to group a bunch of documents together for a product (or whatever), and then have people add documents, pictures, spreadsheets, and move this mess along through a corporate process is exactly what SharePoint does.

I think it would be quite sad that MS leaves ms-access complete out of this SharePoint loop. So, while I don’t need those share point features now, I can well see me wanting to use them in the future. So, don’t diss the fact that we are getting SharePoint features for ms-access.

I will say that few are using the SharePoint features, but if we NEVER get any sharepoint features, then you will NEVER see more then 1% of ms-access users using sharepoint!!

Adding SharePoint features to ms-access gives it a NICE credibility in the corporate environment, and opens up new doors for access users (and developers) in the future.

So, I do welcome SharePoint features for ms-access. Just like I welcome the xml features we got, and also the soap tool kit we got too.


Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Kallal@ msn.com
# October 14, 2005 8:57 PM

Ananda Sim said:

Good to see you Albert. (I hope others from CDMA will speak up as well.)

I would beg to disagree with you on several points you make:

1. I'm not "dissing" any feature - it's just that over the past 10 years, I have personally seen needs for Access features in improved heterogenous connectivity, "good to go" web outputs and inputs that are w3c compliant and a host of other things. Sharepoint needs from my clients or potential clients? Nada.

A dev team obviously has a laundry list of features to implement with consequential resource demands, priorities and datelines.
Sharepoint features in that priority list? IMHO low.
Programmer/User friendly M:M wrappers? High.
Increased Win32 Form and Report features and wizards? High. Spare a thought for the poor 10 year old Expression Builder.
LINQ syntax in VBA? Nice.

2. Add-on SOAP toolkit and PIA in extra cost VSTO and 4 (four) measly files in %program files%\Microsoft Office 2003\OFFICE\AccessWeb\ (which are not even ASP.NET but ASP) and the stray VBA Application command to import/export XML - that's not a lotta XML features.
# October 14, 2005 10:38 PM

Tom Wickerath said:

"We’re very excited about this, in large part because it is pretty much exactly the same as our existing database engine. The difference? We own it now and can extend it."

I hope this means that we can look forward to this problem being resolved:

PRB: Jet 4.0 Row-Level Locking Is Not Available with DAO 3.60
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=306435
# October 15, 2005 6:29 AM

TC said:

I hesitate to ask this, but.. What will happen with DAO? My main product has 75k loc of VBA /and DAO/. It's clear that Access, VBA, and now Jet, are not going away anytime soon. But that leaves DAO as a critical factor for my main product. I can live with DAO not being modded for new Jet features (if that's the way it has to be), but I am reeeeely reeeely dependent on DAO continuing to work to its original spec. Tell me this will happen.
# October 15, 2005 11:46 PM

Andrew Wrigley said:

There is still no mention of a runtime version of Access 12. Is that in a future blog (one way or the other)?

The rather obscure sentence...:

"Developers can still program against the Access engine [phew!], but since it isn’t part of the [Windows?]system any more, application users will need Access on their machines [or the runtime?]."

...certainly casts no light.

Andrew Wrigley
# October 16, 2005 2:31 AM

Andrew Wrigley said:

I think SharePoint is great but...

1. You need Windows Server 2003 to get SharePoint (am I right?).

2. Like many Access developers, I develop for small to medium sized businesses. None have Windows Server 2003.

3. Most of my clients outsource their network management. Therefore, due to compounded interital forces, they won't get Windows Server 2003 until their network guys are comfortable with it. Ie, another 3 years.

4. Therefore, I won't be developing solutions that use Access with SharePoint for at least 3 years.

5. This has the following effects:
5.1. The Client won't invest in Office 12.
5.2. This opens the door to the client purchasing non microsoft products (and me losing the client)
5.3. If a client needs SharePoint-like functionality, they will have to pay me through the nose to design it in good old Access.
5.4. All this functionality will be redundant the minute they have Windows Server 2003 on their network.
5.5. 5.4 will be another reason why Access (and me!) get a bad name without deserving it! (Another is OZPP Syndrome [Over Zealous Parish Priest, that inevitably ends in relational tragedy])
5.6. GoTo 5.2.

6. For Small to Medium businesses, it is an understated fact that cost of ownership is rendered insignificant against cost of development. An app for 10 users will cost the same as an app for 200.

7. The curious paradox is that small to medium businesses would benefit more from investing in state of the art server software than large corporations.

8. I don't think that Microsoft has realised this.

9. To get SMBs to invest in office, Microsoft would do well to find a way to deliver SharePoint without the Client having to upgrade their entire server to Windows 2003.

10. I have no idea how this would be done, but if it is not done, Microsoft is targetting Office 12 almost exclusively at large corporation and missing a huge opportunity.

11. GoTo 5.2.

Andrew Wrigley
# October 16, 2005 2:53 AM

Albert D. Kallal said:


>hesitate to ask this, but.. What will happen with DAO?

I will say that near riot would break out if my DAO code all of a sudden stopped working.

However, if you look at what’s happened with DAO, the latest version of ms-access we have (a2003) actually INCLUDES THE dao by default!! Now, you have to go WAY BACK to access97 to find a version of ms-access that includes the DAO by default. This is a simple matter of the MS team listening to us developers! Guess what? Well, we got the DAO back as a reference by default in a2003. I think this shows a incredible flexibility on the MS access team. That means that the ms-access team cares about folks like me and you who still use DAO.

I can’t think of a BETTER example of the ms-access team listening to developers, and catering to our needs to continue to support, and use DAO.

More amazing, is that is DAO support exists for new features, and remember even the forms reocrdset (not the clone) also supports DAO. Remember, the forms recordset was a new “ado” feature in a2000. Do note that if you stuff the forms reocrdset into a ADO reocrdset, you get a ADO reocrdset. If you stuff a forms reocrdset into a DAO reocrdset, you get a dao reocrdset.

So, if I can think of one area where we been taken care of, the DAO issue has got to be it.

We get new features, and the DAO references is now back by default. Considering that I made the jump from a97 to a2003, it been a real nice ride for me. Considering the recent efforts of the DAO ref back by default, and support for new features in DAO, you got feel all warm and fuzzy on this issue. I am simply not even worried given the recent actions in regards to DAO.

As for the record locking issue pointed out? Well, I would have to think that 99% of the time, this locking would be occurring at the forms level, and that works just fine anyway. If you do have some DAO recordset code that needs record locking, the KB article does give a workaround, but I have not had a problem in this regards.


Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Kallal@ msn.com
# October 16, 2005 3:08 AM

Ermanno said:

I really agree with R. comment:
"I would be much more interested in RAD improvements, particularly with ADP formats and .NET integration. Will the new many-many features make it to ADPs also? Somehow I doubt it." The user are not requesting Sharepoint or new JET Engine (simply siwtch to SQL Server/MSDE). They are requesting to keep form separated from Report, and code in .NET/Component. We want our MDB/ADP stopping to growth and require incredible amount of RAM for running an Access based application.
# October 16, 2005 12:18 PM

TC said:

Albert, thanks for your interesting comments on DAO. Sign me up for the "near riot" if it stops working! I'd really like an authoritiative response from MS, on that question.

PS. When I read Erik's comment on multiple values in one field, I thought to cite your article on multi-valued databases, which I read some time ago. I didn't, because I wasn't sure if you would approve. If you want, I encourage you to cite that article, here. I'm an old-time IT pro, but I had not heard of multi-valued databases (let alone SharePoint), and I found your article quite instructive.
# October 17, 2005 5:49 AM

Erik Rucker said:

Thanks for the good discussion about DB layer, here's a consolidate response to some of the questions & comments. I rolled up the comments as:

Why SharePoint? - Lots of discussion here, and here are some thoughts. The main question seemed to be "why invest in SharePoint when my clients don' use it". SharePoint isn't everywhere yet, but it sure looks like it will be - SharePoint Portal Server is the fastest growing server product in Microsoft's history. Windows SharePoint Services (the part that comes with Windows Server) is growing even faster but is harder to track accurately since it isn't sold separately from Windows Server. We believe that where people use file servers today, they'll use WSS servers tomorrow. OK, not literally tomorrow, but literally next month - it is happening very quickly. I understand the issues about small businesses moving to WSS, and agree that it can take some time, but we really do see the evidence showing that this will happen, and sooner rather than later.

How come you didn’t build any features? – Hold yer horses on this one. The DB layer stuff and the SharePoint work represent only a portion of what we did in Access 12. We’ve tracked the list on UtterAccess (and lots of others, plus our own research, etc.) and have nailed lots and lots of those features. I just haven’t gotten there yet, as I figured the engine discussion was the most interesting way to get started for this group. I’ll be talking about those things over the coming months. Even without the SharePoint work, Access 12 will offer the biggest change since Access 1.0.

What happens to DAO? – It lives on just as it has. As several folks noted, we can’t bust DAO or we’d break a huge number of apps. We’re working on a solution for the row-level locking issue, but it is unclear if we’ll get this in or not.

Will there be an Access runtime? – Yes, that is the plan. Solutions created with the Access Developer Extensions should work like they have before. The ones that are different are solutions created in VB directly against the engine. Those didn’t require the runtime or Access before, since Jet was in the system. Now programming VB against the Access engine will require Access, or you can still use Jet from the O/S just like before.

What about Jet as a server backend for websites? – Jet will continue to work for this just as it has, and Access 12 can author those databases just as before. As noted, this is a pretty common scenario for a lot of small businesses (FrontPage even has, or had, a feature to make it easy). Also, as noted, running Jet on the server comes with a bunch of other challenges, so it isn’t a panacea either. Other solutions include SQL Server Express and (wait for it…) SharePoint. Yes, I know SharePoint isn’t generally thought of as appropriate for public sites, but it actually works well, and provides the simple list functionality many users are looking for. And yes, I know I’m gonna get an earful for that one…
# October 17, 2005 3:11 PM

Bob Archer said:

Ok,

So, I'm still confused. Are we talking about Jet Blue or Jet Red here? Is this the Jet that the new outlook express is using? I take it that it is not considering that OE choose "Jet" cause it was on all Windows machines?

BOb
# October 17, 2005 4:18 PM

GlasgowAccessUser said:

All the access user groups are great; but really poor old Mr Gates keeps on bringing out re works of the same thing
# October 17, 2005 4:37 PM

Ron McMahon said:

Eric, your comment 'Even without the SharePoint work, Access 12 will offer the biggest change since Access 1.0.' really hasn't yet been proven...but I'm a patient guy. I just hope that there is more behind your comment than hot air.

I heard about this post via the October 17 post on the JoelOnSoftware.com blog, where Joel Spolsky rips Microsoft for the pathetic text-search capability in ANY Microsoft database product. (He makes some other observations that really only adds to your pressure of having to really have substance behind your 'biggest change' statement.)

Personally, I fear that this latest revision of Office is not much more than a general reskinning of the UI across all apps. I'll be keeping my wallet in my pocket if that is the case. Ah, to remember the 'good old days' when a new version of software actually meant a substantive improvement in performance and capability of my applications rather than marketing noise.
# October 17, 2005 10:53 PM

TC said:

Erik wrote:
> The [cases] that are different are solutions
> created in VB directly against the engine.
> Those didn’t require the runtime or Access
> before, since Jet was in the system. Now
> programming VB against the Access engine
> will require Access, or you can still use
> Jet from the O/S just like before.

Let me check I understand this. You're saying that the new Jet is still a seperate component, accessed through an intermediary technology (eg. DAO), but for marketing reasons, you'll only supply it bundled-up with Access - you won't supply it on its own? That's a marketing decision, not a technical one?
# October 18, 2005 3:50 AM

Kawigi said:

TC - Basically Access just comes with a modified version of Jet with new features (like Complex Data) that don't exist in the system component. If you use those new features, people will need the new version of Access (with the modified version of Jet) to read it. If you use existing Jet functionality, you don't need to care about it.

Ron - I think there are some pretty big changes, at least. Changing the UI is much more than just reskinning Office 2003, and Access probably has more "visual" changes than the other apps overall, but these changes are also functional. Even that aside, there is still lots of new useful things that Access 12 can do that will hopefully be more apparent due to the visual changes.
# October 18, 2005 3:01 PM

John DeHope said:

I am so excited about this blog. I really hope I am able to use Access 12 to build apps. So keep the information coming! I'm interested in multi-user scenarios.
# October 18, 2005 7:41 PM

TC said:

Kawigi wrote:
> TC: Access just comes with a modified version
> of Jet with new features ... If you use those
> new features [you] need the new version of
> Access (with the modified version of Jet)

Sure; but that that doesn't answer my question. My question was: why won't MS supply the new version of Jet[1], seperately to the new version of Access[2]? Is that a technical decision, due to [1] being bound more-tightly into [2], or is it a non-technical decision, ie. a marketing one?
# October 19, 2005 1:49 AM

PatriotB said:

Bob Archer--

Access is Jet Red. Outlook Express will be using Jet Blue, aka the "Extensible Storage Engine" (ESE, aka Exchange Storage Engine).

See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/ese/ese/portal.asp for details.
# October 19, 2005 9:58 PM

Steve said:

I don't understand why MS would make these changes to the JET Engine, but not add it as a seperate componant.
Does this mean that JET that comes with Windows will be staying static from now on with Access having it's own engine? (Where we can develop against in either old Windows JET or new Access JET?)
# October 22, 2005 4:50 PM

TC said:

Steve, that's how I undertood it. The old one (Jet) is not enhanced, the new one (now called ADE, Access Data Engine) is, and you can code to either one. But I still don't know why ADE will only come bundled with Access.
# October 22, 2005 11:29 PM

RichB said:

Your description of JET sounds like a re-write of history. JET was originally part of Access (or FoxPro for the very early versions). It split into Jet Red and Jet Blue. Jet Blue was used for MSExchange and Active Directory and is shipped with Windows 2000 and later. It's now known as ESE. Jet Red was still shipped with Access. Whether some marketing wonk considered it part of Windows or not is similar to how msvbvm50.dll was shipped with Windows. All throughout it's history, Jet Red has been freely distributable. Many many many VB apps were shipped with Jet Red.

Now there seems to be some politicizing and backstabbing going on within Microsoft - why should the Access team need to take a "private" copy when they own Jet Red. Are there some internal fights going on? Will this now be called Jet Green? Why won't Jet Green be freely distributable? Do Microsoft listen to customers? Are Microsoft deaf?
# October 31, 2005 6:59 AM

chris_n_osborne said:

>The SQL team is de-investing in Jet,
>and telling developers to code
>against SQL Server Express, but as
>it lacks the heterogeneous query
>functionality we needed, Access
>stuck with Jet.

Then the answer is clear, JET should be transferred to the control of the Microsoft people working on MS Access.

If the SQL Server folks won't take care of it, then the people who care about it should.


>
>However, we needed to extend the Jet
>engine, so took a “private” copy of it,

This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. (Not the act, that is understandable. The part that doesn't make sense is that it was done at all instead of continuing on with what went before, but simply in the hands of the MS Access developers instead of the SQL Server developers.)

Perhaps some high-powered management needs to say "do it" to get it done, but JET needs to move to a new house.


>This means Access 12 no longer uses
>the system Jet engine,

This makes even less sense.


>but is tightly bound to its own
>version.

Different versions of JET? What for? Microsoft should keep on doing what it has always done. Upgrading JET's functionality in exactly the way it has always done.

"Private versions" and "extensions for Office" serve no purpose. There should only be one version. Updated and upgraded and modernized with new features and capabilities. If the SQL folks won't do it, it's time to turn over JET to those who are willing and able.


>Developers can still program
>against the Access engine, but since
>it isn’t part of the system any more,
>application users will need Access on
>their machines.

This is a big problem.

This is really of no help or use that I can see.

Departing from the model of the MS Access GUI + JET that has succeeded with so well to date is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.


>Developers targeting users without
>Access can continue to use the
>Jet engine as they have for years or
>can move to SQL Server Express.

The developer thus misses out on any of the potential benefits and features of an "upgrade", creating a situation where there might as well not have been an "upgrade" in the first place.


>
>The primary feature we added to the
>new Access engine is support for
>“complex data”. Complex data really
>isn’t so complex – it is simply a join
>in relational terms, or a repeating
>region in XLM terms. [...]

So, SharePoint data support is the primary feature that will be added?

I have to admit, I have a lengthy list of things I'd like to see added to MS Access, and SharePoint support isn't on the list. (It's not that I think SharePoint support is bad, I just think there are many more high-priority things that need to be supported.)


>
>Developers, of course, are quite
>comfortable doing this by hand and can
>choose to either continue as they have
>or to use the new functionality. For
>developers targeting SharePoint, it
>provides a mechanism for handling
>SharePoint’s complex data structures
>naturally.

I am hoping that there are a *lot* of MS Access developers out there with *lots* of paying customers who want SharePoint support. (While simultaneously doubting it.)

I am also hoping that everyone who formerly didn't need to own a copy of Office with Access in it, is now willing to purchase or upgrade to it in order to run new "Access Applications". (Though, again, I doubt it.)

--------------------
# November 7, 2005 1:02 AM

ianjo said:

Everywhere this article refers to Jet, it is refering to JET Red. JET Red was an ISAM originally developed by Microsoft for BC7, compiled basic. JET Blue was originally developed by Microsoft as a prospective upgrade for Access, but it was never used in this role. JET Red and JET Blue began sharing the common JET moniker in the Spring of 1990 when a query technology, QJET, was developed that would host on both Red and Blue.

As others have noted, JET Blue went on to be used by Microsoft Exchange, Active Directory and many many other Windows services. JET Blue was a private API for many years, but became a published API in April of 2005 when three middle ware applications not covered by the Windows EULA chose it as their data store. Now anyone can use JET Blue.

JET Red is a file sharing techonlogy with page level locking and best effort crash recovery. JET Blue on the other hand is designed to be embedded in a server application, does not share files, has write ahead logging for guaranteed crash recovery and has record level locking. JET Blue does not ship with a query engine but instead relies on applications to write their own queries as C++ ISAM code.
# January 4, 2006 2:40 PM

DmitryKo said:

So the reason that Access doesn't use SQL Server engine or SES (JET Blue) is the need to maintain shared file access. Right. But network file sharing is so 1980s... There could be new database format, based on SQL Server Express engine or maybe WinFS, and a technology to automatically share such databases in server-side mode... And what about unifying query language semantics on a per-project basis, so moving to SQL Server is easier?

# January 5, 2006 8:14 AM

T. MacCabe said:

I only saw one person mention multi-user environments. I would like to hear that something has been done to reduce the impacts of slow networks and dropped connections. And to go with this, what about improving backend replication/recovery processes?

I did like the comment on the need for better reporting tools, but all this needs to keep the non-server owners mind.

Those who use Sharepoint, likely own and operate SQL Server, or at least MSDE. It means thay have more options, for what ever reason. Access has always been the tool of choice for those with limited options. A God send, and is the biggest reason I like (even love) Microsoft. High on my list as well are Excel, Sharepoint 2003, and Visual Studio.Net.

It's the tug-o-war at Microsoft that keeps it evolving. Would you rather have Oracle Portal?
# May 20, 2006 8:30 AM

MarkTwain said:

Runtime Version?
Will there be a distributable runtime file for Access 12 or will all users need a full versin of Access to runan app written in 12?
# July 28, 2006 6:10 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled
Page view tracker