|
|
Hello,
I used the wizzard for making a replica in Acces 2003.
I thought I keep it simple with using this.
No automation, pull down the menu and chose synchronize.
I made six replica's. One for each user and put them all together on de same
server in the office but each in there own subfolder.
I can synchroze each replika with the main database. I can chose the
synchronize from the menu when I'm connected to the server.
This is not possible for another user. There is nothing to chose from the
menu.
I gave the users got all acces rights to each file.
Users can either acces through remote deskstop or my means off Citrix
enviroment.
I found nothing in the microsoft help file and looking on the internet I
finally arrived here.
How can this be? It was så easy to make a replika and use synchronize but
not very easy to find about what to do afterwards?
Anybody know why the other users can synchronize?
|
|
=?Utf-8?B?RXJpYw==?= <Eric[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:356B1261-FF64-4760-B3FA-AD4327F5387D[ at ]microsoft.com:
[Quoted Text] > I used the wizzard for making a replica in Acces 2003.
> I thought I keep it simple with using this.
> No automation, pull down the menu and chose synchronize.
> I made six replica's. One for each user and put them all together
> on de same server in the office but each in there own subfolder.
Er, what, exactly, did you think you were accomplishing with this?
If the users are going to have access to the server to edit those
replicas, why should they not just all edit the same shared mdb?
> I can synchroze each replika with the main database. I can chose
> the synchronize from the menu when I'm connected to the server.
> This is not possible for another user. There is nothing to chose
> from the menu.
Are they opening one of the replicas on the server?
> I gave the users got all acces rights to each file.
> Users can either acces through remote deskstop or my means off
> Citrix enviroment.
>
> I found nothing in the microsoft help file and looking on the
> internet I finally arrived here.
>
> How can this be? It was så easy to make a replika and use
> synchronize but not very easy to find about what to do afterwards?
>
> Anybody know why the other users can synchronize?
Why are you making multiple replicas on the same server in the first
place? This makes no sense at all, as it accomplishes exactly
nothing at all.
I don't know exactly why your users can't synch, but I'm wondering
why you think they need to do so in the first place.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
|
|
[Quoted Text] >
> Er, what, exactly, did you think you were accomplishing with this?
> If the users are going to have access to the server to edit those
> replicas, why should they not just all edit the same shared mdb?
>
The database is for logging the users working progress. I downloaded it from
microsoft and is called Issues.
I just had it in a shared folder but found out that if one user had opened
the file that no other user could open it.
So I thought of making six replica's, one for each user.
A shared mdb? Is it possible to open the same file multiple times?
> Are they opening one of the replicas on the server?
Yes.
>
>
> Why are you making multiple replicas on the same server in the first
> place? This makes no sense at all, as it accomplishes exactly
> nothing at all.
As I wrote I hoped that in that way all user could use the database without
needing to close it.
>
> I don't know exactly why your users can't synch, but I'm wondering
> why you think they need to do so in the first place.
>
I'm no computer scientist. I just found a Template database which forfillled
my needs as a user. I have no IT backup at this office and the one we have at
the head office has no time to help me out.
Thanks
|
|
=?Utf-8?B?RXJpYw==?= <Eric[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:9E38D3C4-D55F-41A4-9076-964E602CE53E[ at ]microsoft.com:
[Quoted Text] >> Er, what, exactly, did you think you were accomplishing with
>> this? If the users are going to have access to the server to edit
>> those replicas, why should they not just all edit the same shared
>> mdb?
>>
> The database is for logging the users working progress. I
> downloaded it from microsoft and is called Issues.
> I just had it in a shared folder but found out that if one user
> had opened the file that no other user could open it.
It's not split? You *must* split any multi-user Access application,
and any replicated app. You won't need replication is you split it
and give each user a copy of the front end.
> So I thought of making six replica's, one for each user.
> A shared mdb? Is it possible to open the same file multiple times?
Yes, it's the way Access is intended to work.
[]
>> why you think they need to do so in the first place.
>>
> I'm no computer scientist. I just found a Template database which
> forfillled my needs as a user. I have no IT backup at this office
> and the one we have at the head office has no time to help me out.
Split the app into front end (forms/reports/queries/macros/modules)
and back end (tables only and nothing else) and link the front end
to the back end. Store a single copy of the back end on the server.
Give each user a copy of the front end linked to the back end data
tables.
This is the only viable way to deploy an Access application, and
Microsoft should be shot for not setting it up that way to begin
with, as they know perfectly well that a single monolithic MDB file
hardly ever works reliably in any environment.
On the subject of replication (which you really don't need):
1. replication is for one purpose and one purpose only, and that's
to allow the editing of a single database in more than on location
such that all the edits can by merged to make the two copies of the
database identical.
2. any other contemplated use of replication (so speed things up, to
get around locking issues, etc.) is a mistake as replication adds
complexities that are much greater in the long run than simply
resolving the original problem would have been.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
|
|
Thanks David
SÃ¥ much easier and it does what I wanted, an easy way to logg progress.
But off course if nobody tells you...
SÃ¥ thanks again for saving my day.
|
|
=?Utf-8?B?RXJpYw==?= <Eric[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:B3C593CE-B4CC-4ED3-BDC1-E1E11F4C91FC[ at ]microsoft.com:
[Quoted Text] > much easier and it does what I wanted, an easy way to logg
> progress. But off course if nobody tells you...
But the help files recommend exactly that. Why MS doesn't structure
all their downloads that way, I dunno. Maybe because they don't want
to put relinking code in the front ends, since so many things can go
wrong with that.
> thanks again for saving my day.
That's why we're here in these newsgroups, to provide assistance to
others. I have been a grateful recipient of it more times than you
can count, and owe it back to the community.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
|
|
|