ADOCE ActiveX Wrapper for .NET Compact Framework

[Andy Sjostrom]

<a href="http://www.devbuzz.com/content/zinc_dotnet_pocket_access_pg1.asp">http://www.devbuzz.com/content/zinc_dotnet_pocket_access_pg1.asp</a><br /><br />Contests are over. Back to (Visual) basic! Check out Peter Foot's article regarding his ADOCE ActiveX wrapper!<br /><br />"The omission of a Pocket Access database provider has sparked much discussion from the very first release of the .NET Compact Framework. While Microsoft had provided developers with SQL Server CE, there is still a strong need for Pocket Access databases, both for updating applications previously written in eVB, and for any other application where installation of SQL Server CE could be considered overkill. With this in mind I wrote a wrapper library around the familiar ADOCE ActiveX control."

[Mike Temporale]

well, the .NET compact framework is still only in beta. So there is hope that MS will include this in the final release due out this coming April.

However, if it doesn't show up... This would be really handy.

[BigCanoe]

I wish it was included in the .NET framework, I would prefer .cdb over text or xml or SQL Server CE personally.

[Jimmy Dodd]

Both Pocket Access and the native data store got left out of .NETcf. Haven't heard any explaination for that either.

[possmann]

How many people (are there like me) who would just love to use PocketAccess on their PPC?

I am talking about being able to sync things with a MS Access database (2000 or 2002) rather than having to 'upgrade' to SQL Server CE or having to purchase an add-on. I keep thinking that MS is really missing the boat on this here...

Any good 3rd party FREE apps out there that allow me to present a form on my PPC so I can add/edit/delete records in my Access database via my PPC?

[Charles Pickrell]

I think Microsoft wants to migarate all their database software towards SQL Server. The Pocket PC folks are just the most nimble of all of the groups and that is why they get all the cutting edge directives completed first. I mean loog at it, Reader, Bluetooth, etc. Pocket PC is fast in getting tech to market. I know the next version of Windows (Longhorn) is supposed to have SQL Server running as the file system! Why on earth would Microsoft want tot continue to use the MDB format when they have something as powerful as SQL server.

That being said I think the migration to SQL server on Pocket PC should be timed to coincide with desktop products. If I had to code a new .NET database app today, I certainly would consider this plug-in for client side data storage.

My 2 cents

[Peter Foot]

I think Microsoft wants to migrate all their database software towards SQL Server.
I'm not sure that I agree its Microsofts game-plan to migrate everyone to SQL Server CE. For example Windows CE .NET 4.x continues to use a development of the same database engine internally, and I'm sure that future versions of Pocket PC will be built using the CEDB database engine.

Pocket Access was a key technology to both eVC and eVB programmers and its ommision from .NET Compact Framework was never fully justified. I decided to create the wrapper because I wanted to use my existing Pocket Access databases in my projects and made it available so everybody else could too. The solution is more resource friendly than SQL Server CE which is for most applications overkill. I'd like to see further development of the database engine in future versions of the OS sure but I'm convinced that it's a more appropriate database engine for mobile client development - but hey I'm biased I guess :wink: .

[BigCanoe]

I would agree if SQL Server CE was built in, in the ROM of the PocketPC. I don't expect non-corporate consumers will want to install it. I guess for small databases its best to use XML files or the nice wrapper that Peter has written.

[possmann]

I assume that SQL Ce is much more resource intensive than Pokect Access - is that correct? Memory and processor... I would further assume that you would be able to store the databases themselves on an expansion card in the PPC - are there any differences here?

Longhorn on SQL? Whoa... I gotta get caught up on the news a bit. I am certainly for merging the two together, but I would think that would comprimise MS licensing strategy for SQL. Access is much less and sold to a completly differnt user/purpose. How would you market SQL to that same user without loosing the value/price to the high-end industrial user/prupose?

my 1 cent ;)

[Tim Allen]

I agree that Access and SQL Server are different beasts which satisfy different business problems. However it would seem to make sense for Microsoft to merge these at some point in the future, at least from an internal engine perspective even if outwardly they still look and feel different - and are priced accordingly.

In the short term though I think they just had to make a difficult decision based on they key constraint of keeping the size of the CF as small as possible - and that means support for only one database. SQL is the strategic choice - at least for business which MS may view as the big untapped PPC market - and so Access got left out.

BTW - good job Peter!

[Daniel]

MS has started down this path already, if you buy Office developer you get MSDE (MS Data/Desktop Engine/Environment - they changed it around I never remember anymore!) which is a cut down version of SQL server. MSDE also comes with VS6 and VS.net (I think).

I always found SQL CE annoying to set up, I would hope this is not the case now (haven't looked at it for a while) can anyone confirm that it is easier to get running now?

SQL certainly seems like it's a little bit over the top but perhaps there are features (like replication) built in that are required to make it an effective solution?

Daniel