Remote Database and Office Database
in [General]
|
Prev: Douglas Steele, Arvin Meyer, Tony Toews, John Spencer, DuaneHookum, Allen Browne, etc
Next: Update prices in access from Excell
From: Thomas Kroljic on 27 May 2010 20:04 John, <<and it's complicated to set it up correctly.>> Even as an experience programmer, I still think it a complicated setup for basically transferring data from one database to another. Unfortunatetly, we will not have access to any internet connections while in the field. So, all field data (computers) will return to the office by the end of the day. "John W. Vinson" <jvinson(a)STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote in message news:ur4tv5103pi8trh4cdtv1gbi9klejudmkd(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 May 2010 08:39:46 -0400, "Thomas Kroljic" <tkroljic(a)covad.net> > wrote: > >>John and Pieter, >> >> Thanks for the tip. Is Replication stable? The last time attemtpted to >>use it was 8 years ago. At that time it seem like a pain-in-the-butt...in >>the end, we ended up using Terminal Services. Unfortunately, I don't have >>that option at the moment. >> I'll check on David Fenton in the group you listed below. > > It's stable, it does the job, it's a pain in the butt, and it's > complicated to > set it up correctly. I've used it with two clients and they both ended up > using Citrix (terminal services basically). > > It is possible to "roll your own" replication as you suggest, but it's a > VERY > complicated and difficult process; you wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, > more > like reinventing an automatic transmission! > -- > > John W. Vinson [MVP]
From: David W. Fenton on 28 May 2010 19:39 "Thomas Kroljic" <tkroljic(a)covad.net> wrote in news:#VF08$m$KHA.5916(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: > thanks for the follow-up. I'll read through the FAQ on > replication and > give it a try in a small test environment. Be sure to read the Replication Wiki article on things not to believe in the MS documentation, though. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: David W. Fenton on 30 May 2010 13:54 "Thomas Kroljic" <tkroljic(a)covad.net> wrote in news:#81rqaz$KHA.5848(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > One final question for now, if the Field laptop is only used > for > gathering New data and there is no > reason to upload data from the Office database to the Field > database, is > it worth setting up a Replication procedure? I don't know. If you are sure that's all that ever happens, and the table they are adding data to is completely independent of all others (no relationships), then it might be simpler. But, frankly, writing the code to do that takes a lot longer than writing the replication synch code, and replication will work even if the requirements change and you need more than just one-way additions, while "manually" updating will break if the requirements change. I'm prejudiced on this, i.e., pro-Replication, because I've been using it for apps just like this since 1997. It's trivial for me, and I've got pre-written code I can borrow from other projects to do all the conflict checking and so forth (though none of it is all that complicated). In terms of reliability, as long as the synchs are always across a wired LAN connection, it will be rock-solid. -- David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Thomas Kroljic on 31 May 2010 10:50
David, Again, Thank You very much for your time and advice. I do appreciate. Thomas "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9D888D9D12990f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.99... > "Thomas Kroljic" <tkroljic(a)covad.net> wrote in > news:#81rqaz$KHA.5848(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > >> One final question for now, if the Field laptop is only used >> for >> gathering New data and there is no >> reason to upload data from the Office database to the Field >> database, is >> it worth setting up a Replication procedure? > > I don't know. If you are sure that's all that ever happens, and the > table they are adding data to is completely independent of all > others (no relationships), then it might be simpler. > > But, frankly, writing the code to do that takes a lot longer than > writing the replication synch code, and replication will work even > if the requirements change and you need more than just one-way > additions, while "manually" updating will break if the requirements > change. > > I'm prejudiced on this, i.e., pro-Replication, because I've been > using it for apps just like this since 1997. It's trivial for me, > and I've got pre-written code I can borrow from other projects to do > all the conflict checking and so forth (though none of it is all > that complicated). > > In terms of reliability, as long as the synchs are always across a > wired LAN connection, it will be rock-solid. > > -- > David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/ > usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ |