By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,189 Members | 1,028 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,189 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Limit to New records only after synchro

P: n/a
Hi, hoping someone can help.

Access 2003, WinXP.

I have built a database that uses synchro to co-ordinate with the
mothership.

All is well.

The person i built it for wants the satellites to be able to edit the
entries in their database until it is synchro-ed(sic?) with the mothership.

At that point they should only be able to add new entries and not edit
existing records.

Is this possible?

Any and all responses welcome.
--
Sharktyyfa

Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
In general if they are working on the tables using a form where the
AllowAdditions is set to "yes" and the AllowEdits is set to "No" this would
suffice to meet one of your needs, but not the "in between Synch I can edit"
criterion.

Well, it is a conundrum, no doubt about it. Because you are asking to allow
them to selectively edit SOME records, but not ALL records, presumably from
the same table.

I guess one way is to work with a duplicate table ... When they synch, dump
the entire reservoire into another table, and let the Forms work from this
table. The second table gets flushed / refilled with every synch.
Just curious, Does synching cause items they "add" ... to get added to the
mother ship's tables? If so, added records will need to be added to both the
copied table and the main table on the satellite machine.

Just some dumb guesses as to procedure, don't know what kind of a
performance hit we're talking creating a second set of table(s).
"Sharktyyfa" <sh********@sharktyyfa.com.tw> wrote in message
news:42******@clear.net.nz...
Hi, hoping someone can help.

Access 2003, WinXP.

I have built a database that uses synchro to co-ordinate with the
mothership.

All is well.

The person i built it for wants the satellites to be able to edit the
entries in their database until it is synchro-ed(sic?) with the
mothership.

At that point they should only be able to add new entries and not edit
existing records.

Is this possible?

Any and all responses welcome.
--
Sharktyyfa

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
Hi mate,

Thanks for the reply.

The client's plan is to have editing ability on the mothership only. The
mothership is a complete record and so is each laptop once synched.

The story behind it is that they have one employee who is not too competent
so they want to limit their potential to cause damage as they can check the
new ones added each day from the laptop.

I know, I know, I wouldn't let the employee near the laptop but there you
have it.

Cheers,
--
Sharktyyfa
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uc**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
In general if they are working on the tables using a form where the
AllowAdditions is set to "yes" and the AllowEdits is set to "No" this
would suffice to meet one of your needs, but not the "in between Synch I
can edit" criterion.

Well, it is a conundrum, no doubt about it. Because you are asking to
allow them to selectively edit SOME records, but not ALL records,
presumably from the same table.

I guess one way is to work with a duplicate table ... When they synch,
dump the entire reservoire into another table, and let the Forms work from
this table. The second table gets flushed / refilled with every synch.
Just curious, Does synching cause items they "add" ... to get added to the
mother ship's tables? If so, added records will need to be added to both
the copied table and the main table on the satellite machine.

Just some dumb guesses as to procedure, don't know what kind of a
performance hit we're talking creating a second set of table(s).
"Sharktyyfa" <sh********@sharktyyfa.com.tw> wrote in message
news:42******@clear.net.nz...
Hi, hoping someone can help.

Access 2003, WinXP.

I have built a database that uses synchro to co-ordinate with the
mothership.

All is well.

The person i built it for wants the satellites to be able to edit the
entries in their database until it is synchro-ed(sic?) with the
mothership.

At that point they should only be able to add new entries and not edit
existing records.

Is this possible?

Any and all responses welcome.
--
Sharktyyfa


Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
In which case, all you need to do is synch, dump all data from the mother
ship into both the synched table and the editable one, and all forms and
editable queries will have the editable table as the source table? Bloat
anyone?
"Sharktyyfa" <sh********@sharktyyfa.com.tw> wrote in message
news:42******@clear.net.nz...
Hi mate,

Thanks for the reply.

The client's plan is to have editing ability on the mothership only. The
mothership is a complete record and so is each laptop once synched.

The story behind it is that they have one employee who is not too
competent so they want to limit their potential to cause damage as they
can check the new ones added each day from the laptop.

I know, I know, I wouldn't let the employee near the laptop but there you
have it.

Cheers,
--
Sharktyyfa
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uc**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
In general if they are working on the tables using a form where the
AllowAdditions is set to "yes" and the AllowEdits is set to "No" this
would suffice to meet one of your needs, but not the "in between Synch I
can edit" criterion.

Well, it is a conundrum, no doubt about it. Because you are asking to
allow them to selectively edit SOME records, but not ALL records,
presumably from the same table.

I guess one way is to work with a duplicate table ... When they synch,
dump the entire reservoire into another table, and let the Forms work
from this table. The second table gets flushed / refilled with every
synch.
Just curious, Does synching cause items they "add" ... to get added to
the mother ship's tables? If so, added records will need to be added to
both the copied table and the main table on the satellite machine.

Just some dumb guesses as to procedure, don't know what kind of a
performance hit we're talking creating a second set of table(s).
"Sharktyyfa" <sh********@sharktyyfa.com.tw> wrote in message
news:42******@clear.net.nz...
Hi, hoping someone can help.

Access 2003, WinXP.

I have built a database that uses synchro to co-ordinate with the
mothership.

All is well.

The person i built it for wants the satellites to be able to edit the
entries in their database until it is synchro-ed(sic?) with the
mothership.

At that point they should only be able to add new entries and not edit
existing records.

Is this possible?

Any and all responses welcome.
--
Sharktyyfa



Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:uc**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
I guess one way is to work with a duplicate table ... When they
synch, dump the entire reservoire into another table, and let the
Forms work from this table. The second table gets flushed /
refilled with every synch. Just curious, Does synching cause items
they "add" ... to get added to the mother ship's tables? If so,
added records will need to be added to both the copied table and
the main table on the satellite machine.


Not an attractive option in a replicated application, which the
poster failed to explain clearly.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
In which case, all you need to do is synch, dump all data from the
mother ship into both the synched table and the editable one, and
all forms and editable queries will have the editable table as the
source table? Bloat anyone?


You're assuming synchronization in code, not via Jet replication.

Your suggestions are useless in a replicated scenario.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Sharktyyfa" <sh********@sharktyyfa.com.tw> wrote in
news:42******@clear.net.nz:
Access 2003, WinXP.

I have built a database that uses synchro to co-ordinate with the
mothership.

All is well.

The person i built it for wants the satellites to be able to edit
the entries in their database until it is synchro-ed(sic?) with
the mothership.

At that point they should only be able to add new entries and not
edit existing records.

Is this possible?


You *still* didn't follow Larry's suggestion to include the word
REPLICATION in the subject. Because of that, I missed this new
thread and replied in the original one.

The suggestion to change the AllowEdits property of the forms on the
laptops is the best solution. However, it is not foolproof -- you'd
still need to secure your data tables.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
Right, sorry. So - have you offered the OP a better plan, or are you not
aware of any? I was trying to help the OP, sorry if I goofed.
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.78...
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
In which case, all you need to do is synch, dump all data from the
mother ship into both the synched table and the editable one, and
all forms and editable queries will have the editable table as the
source table? Bloat anyone?


You're assuming synchronization in code, not via Jet replication.

Your suggestions are useless in a replicated scenario.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:O#**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in
message news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.78...
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
In which case, all you need to do is synch, dump all data from
the mother ship into both the synched table and the editable
one, and all forms and editable queries will have the editable
table as the source table? Bloat anyone?


You're assuming synchronization in code, not via Jet replication.

Your suggestions are useless in a replicated scenario.


Right, sorry. So - have you offered the OP a better plan, or are
you not aware of any? I was trying to help the OP, sorry if I
goofed. "


Yes, but I posted in the original thread, because I was expecting
the new thread to have "replication" in the subject, as Larry Linson
had recommended.

I suggested the same thing you suggested for setting the editing
properties of the form, well before I'd read either of your answers.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
What's the ol' expression: No good deed goes unpunished? :-)

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:O#**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in
message news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.78...
"William Benson" <wbenson1(SPAMSUCKS)@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

In which case, all you need to do is synch, dump all data from
the mother ship into both the synched table and the editable
one, and all forms and editable queries will have the editable
table as the source table? Bloat anyone?

You're assuming synchronization in code, not via Jet replication.

Your suggestions are useless in a replicated scenario.


Right, sorry. So - have you offered the OP a better plan, or are
you not aware of any? I was trying to help the OP, sorry if I
goofed. "


Yes, but I posted in the original thread, because I was expecting
the new thread to have "replication" in the subject, as Larry Linson
had recommended.

I suggested the same thing you suggested for setting the editing
properties of the form, well before I'd read either of your answers.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.