I have an A2000 application that I have designed to use a replicated
Access database. The application permits information to be gathered on
cardiac patients in a hospital system. Most users will be viewing or
entering data at their workstations attached to the network. However,
there will be one mobile user who will walk around a hospital with a
tablet PC entering data. It was this user's needs that drove me to use
a replication approach. While the hospital system is trying to make
wireless networks available, they aren't yet ready for prime time and
even if they were, the bandwidth would not be high enough for running MS
Access and it may never be.
Note that there will be only two users entering data. The data entered
by the mobile user is different enough from that entered by the other
user that there will be very little possiblity for conflict (i.e.,
different tables used for the most part). For this reason, I felt
comfortable using replication. Numerous tests confirmed this to be
true.
Note also that my user interface (A2000) is separate from the replicated
database. I'm only replicating the tables in this scenario.
I'm setting up the replicas as hub and spoke where one replica will
function as the hub. However, it occurred to me that I could
potentially have only one spoke for the mobile user. I could then have
the rest of the users connect directly to the hub. In this way, only
the mobile user would need to synchronize. Is there anything wrong with
this approach? Alternatives would be to give the other users their own
replicas or perhaps just one more replica for the one non-mobile user
entering data. What would be the best way to design this system of
replicas?
Bill Ehrreich
Hollywood, FL
*** Sent via Developersdex
http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
