Jamie,

Thanks for writing. So you're saying that as long as I have the same
schema (perhaps even data) on both dev & prod boxes, a reference to
'localhost' should work.

Yeah, the last thing I wanted was my web service in IIS 7 (on the same
box as SQL Server 2005) to have to call the database via the IP stack
when it was on the same box.

Thanks for clearing that up!

pat
:)

On Oct 19, 5:35 am, Jamie Fraser <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not totally sure what your problem is...
>
> You have a local app and a (should have) local DB. You should have an
> instance of SQL Server running locally on your dev machine. You refer to
> this using a standard connection string.
>
> When you "publish" your app, you update the relevant connection string to
> point to SQL Server on your remote machine (you might find that it doesn't
> need to change).
>
> To ensure data is consistent between your local machine and your remote
> machine you can use something like replication.
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, B☼gus Excepti☼n <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
> > What I mean is, in VS I make a reference to a local DB, because on the
> > target/published server I have a MSSQL 2005 there (not on the local VS
> > machine).
>
> > So I want to test (F5) my solution while in VS, but that would mean
> > having a reference to my MSSQL 2005 database via a URL, as it is
> > remote. The problem comes in when the solution on VS is "published" to
> > the remote machine where MSSQL is.
>
> > Will the app refer to the database the same way it did in VS? I assume
> > so. In that case, the app has to go out to the IP stack to find the
> > data. Clearly, it would be better to have the app interact with the
> > database direct without using the ip layer at all.
>
> > So how can I wrote a solution in VS that will work directly with a
> > local db that is only local once published?
>
> > Do I need to somehow recreate the db on the remote machine in my local
> > instance? How would they stay in sync? Replication of some sort?
>
> > Interested in your thoughts.
>
> > pat
> > :)

Reply via email to