Absolutely not my favorite solution.

Pretty clearly states that ODBC won't recognise Access. And yet, we
have a client that wishes for a variety of complicated (and rather
foolish) reasons to query Access data in FM.

Is there a trick, workaround, plug-in or something.

I feel I ought to at least ask.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be most welcome.

Thanks,

Ken

Ken wrote:
> Absolutely not my favorite solution.
>
> Pretty clearly states that ODBC won't recognise Access. And yet, we
> have a client that wishes for a variety of complicated (and rather
> foolish) reasons to query Access data in FM.
>
> Is there a trick, workaround, plug-in or something.
>
> I feel I ought to at least ask.
>
> Any thoughts or suggestions would be most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
FileMaker can import Access data via ODBC. It has had this functionality
for several versions. What version are you using? Can you be more
specific about what your trying to accomplish?

M Myett

Thanks for your reply, Michael.

In an ideal world, we would have FM (v9) directly connected ("live")
to the Access mdb (v2). All of the data would remain in Access, but FM
would provide a "front end" for a number of important reports that
Access is too clumsy. Part of the problem is that we need to keep the
data "live" -- not import it (though I'm curious about that too)

The ultimate goal, of course, is to persuade the client to re-develop
the whole thing in FM.

But this is a hurdle we have to overcome before we can proceed with
FM.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Ken



> > Ken
>
> FileMaker can import Access data via ODBC. It has had this functionality
> for several versions. What version are you using? Can you be more
> specific about what your trying to accomplish?
>
> M Myett

Ken wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, Michael.
>
> In an ideal world, we would have FM (v9) directly connected ("live")
> to the Access mdb (v2). All of the data would remain in Access, but FM
> would provide a "front end" for a number of important reports that
> Access is too clumsy. Part of the problem is that we need to keep the
> data "live" -- not import it (though I'm curious about that too)
>
> The ultimate goal, of course, is to persuade the client to re-develop
> the whole thing in FM.
>
> But this is a hurdle we have to overcome before we can proceed with
> FM.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken


In order to use the Access data source live, you would have to convert
it to either SQL or FM. That seems like a no brainer. So you either have
to convince your client to commit to FM or write a script(s) to produce
your reports which updates the data from Access by import first.

M Myett

On Dec 4, 10:02 pm, Michael Myett <no... [at] nowhere.net> wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply, Michael.
>
> > In an ideal world, we would have FM (v9) directly connected ("live")
> > to the Access mdb (v2). All of the data would remain in Access, but FM
> > would provide a "front end" for a number of important reports that
> > Access is too clumsy. Part of the problem is that we need to keep the
> > data "live" -- not import it (though I'm curious about that too)
>
> > The ultimate goal, of course, is to persuade the client to re-develop
> > the whole thing in FM.
>
> > But this is a hurdle we have to overcome before we can proceed with
> > FM.
>
> > Any thoughts?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Ken
>
> In order to use the Access data source live, you would have to convert
> it to either SQL or FM. That seems like a no brainer. So you either have
> to convince your client to commit to FM or write a script(s) to produce
> your reports which updates the data from Access by import first.
>
> M Myett- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is migrating the MS Access data to MS SQL Server (Express Edition is
free) an option? Using ESS, creating a FileMaker front-end is a
snap....


Jeroen Aarts