There is a business process that happens currently in a totally manual fashion, which seems to me to be a no-brainer to automate. Basically what happens is when a new row is added to a single table in a SQL server, a person then manually makes a change in another business system (based on some very simple business logic).
It's easy to capture the business logic and make the change in the 2nd system programmatically using a web-service. However I don't know how to trigger the calling of the web service when the new row is added into the SQL table.
I've been reading from older forums posts that there are 2 options - the SQL dependency class in .NET and a database trigger in SQL. I was wondering if those are still the 2 main options for a problem like this one.
A colleague of mine showed me the SignalR framework and it was very impressive, but I understand that only works for web applications with a HTML/Javascript front end? I was wondering if there was something similar to that, that's easy to use to simply call a webservice.
Thanks
You can use sql dependency and you'll be notified each time your database changes
I wrote a tutorial a few years back on how to deal with this
Sql Dependency tutorial
In this question, I was facing an issue where I was writing an update for a deployed application to bring the database up to date with the newer version we are deploying. Basic outline as follows:
Began with currently deployed version of application
Added new functionality that used existing database
Added new database tables and relationships
Added new functionality that depended on the new databse structure
Testing complete, ready for deployment
The issue here is that the currently deployed application has been in use for a few months and has a lot of data that would need to be preserved, so simply replacing the old with the new was not viable (at least not for the database, but of course it works for the code). So I used the following steps to write a script in SQL for the updated version of the application to run the first time it starts up to make the necessary changes to the database without touching existing data (aside from populating the new tables):
Use VS2010's "Generate database from model" functionality to create a .sql (the model was originally created using the "Generate model from database" functionality)
Remove all parts of the .sql that act on the existing tables, except for those that add FKs between new and old tables
Use the resulting script to build the new database
Sounds pretty clean and done, right? Wrong. The mapping from the model to the database was all wrong for the new tables. Long story short, the database that generated the model had tables named in the plural (and the mapping was correct and the application worked), and the database generated by the model created tables in the plural (identical names to what the tables where the DB generated the model, but the model did not map to them). The solution ended up being to change the script to name the tables in the singular, and then everything worked flawlessly.
What happened here? The code remained untouched, no changes were made to the model, and the old tables continued to work fine the entire time, yet somewhere in the process of
Generate script
Delete "new" tables and constraints (those that don't yet exist in the deployed version)
Run script to re-add the tables
the mapping decided to be to singularly named tables (User instead of Users, Address instead of Addresses, etc).
Can anyone explain to me how/why this would happen this way?
You might want to look at some of the tools that redgate supply - good tools for comparing two DB structures and generating a script to update.
http://www.red-gate.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=brand_aware&utm_campaign=redgate&gclid=CIamkumgw6sCFcYPfAodnGVjsQ
So, I need to synchronize two data stores, one of which is a SQL database, and I felt it was natural to use the built in provider for that side. But unfortunately, I started running into trouble because the SqlSyncProvider doesn't use the ChangeDataRetriever and NotifyingChangeApplier, but instead communicates through some DbSyncContext object. Therefore, I had to derive from the SqlSyncProvider and override mainly the GetChangeBatch and ProcessChangeBatch methods so they become compatible with the rest of the Sync Framework.
But the trouble is that I believe that I'm missing something in that transformation. The result is that when I create a row in a SQL database, and synchronize to the other store, and delete the row (or update) in the other store, after syncing the changes don't appear in the SQL database. The problem is probably caused by the bulkdelete stored procedure which filters the delete table and separates rows that are created locally from the rows created elsewhere.
Does anybody know what could cause this problem? I would really like to see some samples or documentation regarding synchronization between a SQL provider and a custom provider.
I'm writing an application that is using a database (currently MySQL 4) to store data.
It is likely that I will make changes to this in the form of updates later to add additional data. Updating the application is simple, it essentially comes down to overwriting the program files with the new ones. However how do I go about updating the database schema?
The database is remote and so my application might exist in several places, so simply dumping the ALTER and CREATE statements in an installer would result in the changes being made multiple times, and I have been asked explicitly for an automatic solution that allows for the application copies to be updated over a transition period, and for schema updates to be automatic.
I considered examining the schema at start-up to look for missing tables and columns, and adding them as needed, however this does not seem like a clean solution. I also considered putting some kind of “schema version” number on the database, but can’t see any way to do this short of a single row table with an int “Version” column which doesn’t seem a good way either.
I can highly recommend Liquibase. It really does work - I've used it and was very impressed.
Essentially, it keeps its own log of statements run on a database and runs them only if not already run/needed. It is XML driven and allows you to use optional pre- and post-execution statements and conditions. You check your XML files into your source control and invoke it from your build tool. It's even suitable for driving production releases.
It's magic.
Rather than rolling your own system for versioning your database it's probably worth looking into an existing framework that will manage it for you.
I use liquibase and have integrated into my build using the maven plugin. Worth checking out!
Just as you proposed, add a table where you store the current version of the database schema. Then you only have to apply the changes between your last schema update and the new release, and set the new version number accordingly. I've done this to update our production database about 300 times, it just works.
I'm considering undertaking a project to migrate a very large MS Access application to a new system based on SQL Server. The existing system is essentially an ERP application with a couple of dozen users, all sharing the Access database over the network. The database has around 300 tables and lots of messy VBA code. This system is beginning to break down (actually, it's amazing it has worked as long as it has).
Due to the size and complexity of the Access application, a 'big bang' approach is not really feasible. It seems sensible to rope off chunks of functionality and migrate them piecemeal to the new system. During the migration process, which I expect to take several months, there may be a need for both databases to be in operation and be able to query and modify data in both systems.
I have considered using something like the ADO.NET Entity Framework to implement a data abstraction layer to handle this, but as far as I can tell, the Entity Framework has no Access provider.
Does my approach seem reasonable? What other strategies have people used to accomplish similar goals?
You may find that the main problem is using the MS Access JET engine as the backend. I'm assuming that you do have an Access FE (frontend) with all objects except tables, and a BE (backend - tables only).
You may find that migrating the data to SQL Server, and linking the Access FE to that, would help alleviate problems immediately.
Then, if you don't want to continue to use MS Access as the FE, you could consider breaking it up into 'modules', and redesign modules one by one using a separate development platform.
We faced a similar situation a few years ago, but we knew from the beginning that we'll have to swich one day to SQL SERVER, so the whole code was written to work from an Access client to both Access AND SQL server databases.
The idea of having a 'one-step' migration to SQL server is certainly the easier way to manage this on the database side, and there are many tools for that. But, depending on the way your client app talks to the database, your code might then not work properly. If, for example, your code includes a lot of SQL instructions (or generates them on the fly by, for example, adding filters to SELECT instructions), your syntax might not be 'SQL server' compatible: access wildcards, dates, functions, will not work on SQL server.
In addition to this, and as said by #mjv, the other drawback of a one time switch to MS SQL is that you will inheritate many of the problems from the original database: wrong or inapropriate field names, inapropriate primary/foreign key policies, hidden one-to-many relations that you'd like to implement in the new database model, etc.
I'll propose here some principles and rules to implement a 'soft transition' solution, which clearly best fits you. Just to say that it's not going to be easy, but it's definitely very interesting, paticularly when dealing with 300 tables! Lucky you!
I assume here that yo have the ability to update the client code, and you'd prefer to keep at all times the same client interface. It is of course possible to have at transition time two different interfaces, one for each database, but this will be very confusing for the users, and a permanent source of frustration for them.
According to me, the best solution strongly depend on:
The original connection technology,
and the way data is managed in your
client's code: Access linked tables,
ODBC, ADODB, recordset, local
tables, forms recordsources, batch
updating, etc.
The possibilities to split your
tables and your app in 'mostly
independant' modules.
And you will not spare the following mandatory activities:
setup up of a transfer
procedure from Access database to SQL server. You
can use already existing tools (The
access upsizing wizard is very poor,
so do not hesitate to buy a real
one, like SSW or EMS SQL Manager,
very powerfull) or build your own
one with Visual Basic. If your plan
is to make some changes in Data
Definition, you'll definitely have
to write some code. Keep in mind
that you will run this code
maaaaaany times, so make sure that
it includes all time-saving
instructions that will allow you to
restart the process from the start
as many times as you want. You will
have to choose between 2 basic data
import strategies when importing data:
a - DELETE existing record, then INSERT imported record
b - UPDATE existing record from imported record
If you plan to switch to new Primary\foreign key types, you'll have to keep track of old identifiers in your new database model during the transition period. Do not hesitate to switch to GUID Primary Keys at this stage, especially if the plan is to replicate data on multiple sites one of these days.
This transfer procedure will be divided in modules corresponding to the 'logical' modules defined previously, and you should be able to run any of these modules independantly (keeping of course in mind that they'll probably have to be implemented in a specific order, where the 'customers' module has to run before the 'invoicing' module).
implement in your client's code the possibility to connect to both original ms-access database and new MS SQL server. Ideally, you should be able to manage from within your code both connections for displaying and validating data.
This possibility will be implemented by modules, where you will have, for each of them, a 'trial period', ie the possibility to choose at testing time between access connection and sql connection when using the module. Once testing is done and complete, the module can then be run in exclusive SQL server mode.
During the transfer period, that can last a few months, you will have to manage programatically the database constraints that exist between 'SQL server' modules and 'Access' modules. Going back to our customers/invoicing example, the customers module will be first switched to MS SQL. Before the Invoicing module can be switched, you'll have to implement programmatically the one to many relations between Customers and Invoices, where each of the tables will be in a different database. Such a constraint can be implemented on the Invoice form by populating the Customers combobox with the Customers recordset from the SQL server.
My proposal is to build your modules following your database model, allways beginning with the 'one' tables or your 'one-to-many' relations: basic lists like 'Units', 'Currencies', 'Countries', shall be switched first. You'll have a first 'hands on' experience in writting data transfer code, and managing a second connection in your client interface. You'll be then able to 'go up' in your database model, switching the 'products' and 'customers' tables (where units, countries and currencies are foreign keys) to the new server.
Good luck!
I would second the suggestion to upsize the back end to SQL Server as step 1.
I would never go to the suggested Step 2, though (i.e., replacing the Access front end with something else). I would instead suggest investing the effort in fixing the flaws of the schema, and adjusting the Access app to work with the new schema.
Obviously, it is never the case that everything just works hunky dory when you upsize -- some things that were previously quite fast will be dogs, and some things that were previously quite slow will be fast. And I've found that it is often the case that the problems are very often not where you anticipate that they will be. You can only figure out what needs to be fixed by testing.
Basically, anything that works poorly gets re-architected, or moved entirely server-side.
Leverage the investment in the existing Access app rather than tossing all that out and starting from scratch. Access is a fine front end for a SQL Server back end as long as you don't assume it's going to work just the same way as it would with a Jet/ACE back end.
...thinking out loud... I think this may work.
I appears that the complexity of the application resides in the various VBA modules rather than the database table/schema themselves. A possible migration path could therefore be to first migrate the data storage to SQL server, exactly as-is, as follow:
prevent any change to the data for a few hours
duplicate all tables to the SQL server; be sure to create the same indexes as well.
create linked tables to ODBC Source pointing to the newly created tables on SQL Server
these tables should have the very same name as the original tables (which therefore may require being renamed, say with a leading underscore, for possible reference).
Now, the application can be restarted and should be using the SQL tables rather than the Access tables. All logic should work as previously (right...), possible slowness to be expected, depending on the distance between the two machines.
All the above could be tested in about a day's work or so; the most tedious being the creation of the tables on SQL server (much of that can be automated, I'm sure). The next most tedious task is to assert that the application effectively works as previously, but with its storage on SQL.
EDIT: As suggested by a comment, I should stress that there is a [fair ?] possibility that the application would not readily work so smoothly under SQL server back-end, and could require weeks of hard work in testing and fixing. However, and unless some of these difficulties can be anticipated because of insight into the application not expressed in the question, I propose that attempting the "As-is" migration to SQL Server should be considered; after all, it may just work with minimal effort, and if it doesn't, we'd know this very quickly. This is therefore a hi-return, low risk proposal...
The main advantage sought with this approach is that there will be a single storage during the [as the OP expects] longer period during which the old Access application will co-exist with the new application.
The drawback of this approach, is that, at least at first, the schema of original database is reproduced verbatim, i.e. including some of its known quirks and legacy-herited idiosyncrasies. These schema issues (and the underlying application logic) can be in time corrected, but this is of course less easy than if the new application starts ab initio, with its own, separate, storage, and distinct schema.
After the storage is moved to SQL server, the most used and/or the most independent modules of the Access application can be re-written in the new application, and as significant portions of the original application is ported, effective usage, by select beta testers or by actual users can start to be switched to the new application.
Possibly, some kind of screen-scraping based logic or some other system could be used to produce an hybrid application which would provide the end users with a comprehensive application, which sometimes work from new logic, and sometimes from the original MS-Access program.