I guess I don't understand your point here. It's not that local maintenance of data is a great burden, bur rather that if you ever need access to it from another facility it's not available. I know many people here feel like that's the way things should be, but that's a different issue. My point was only that it is perfectly possible to support a distibuted access model without introducing a single point of failure. On a more basic level, as an engineer, I find it frustrating when implementation strategies are enshrined as functional requirements. If you see this is as a privacy issue and you don't want distributed access, then so be it. But please don't say that the REASON for not implementing distributed access is avoiding a single point of failure. The two issues are very different.
--- jae kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >That being said, > >maintaining all data locally (without any synchronization or > sharing) > >is, in my opinion, unnecessarily extreme. > > Not to be a smart A**, but we are living in the extreme. > and local maintenance of data is not big a deal. > Regular sync should be done. > > J. === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
