On 10/7/09 21:35 , Adam DeVita adev...@verifeye.com wrote:
One can also get a mess if Mr. Red and Mr Black both get new customers, and
enter them and they both get the same ID because the auto-generated int
happens to be the same. Both copies get updated with the other guy's data,
they then
Jean-Denis Muys wrote:
On 10/7/09 21:35 , Adam DeVita adev...@verifeye.com wrote:
One can also get a mess if Mr. Red and Mr Black both get new customers, and
enter them and they both get the same ID because the auto-generated int
happens to be the same. Both copies get updated with the
On 7 Oct 2009, at 10:13am, Jean-Denis Muys wrote:
[setup description]
I'd appreciate some feedback here or
pointers to litterature.
You see how complicated you had to get before you had an acceptable
solution ? Two extra columns ? Timestamps ? Retention of records
which have to be
On 10/7/09 11:50 , Simon Slavin slav...@hearsay.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 7 Oct 2009, at 10:13am, Jean-Denis Muys wrote:
[setup description]
I'd appreciate some feedback here or
pointers to litterature.
Try really really hard just to have all sites access your MySQL
database remotely.
On 7 Oct 2009, at 1:47pm, Jean-Denis Muys wrote:
On 10/7/09 11:50 , Simon Slavin slav...@hearsay.demon.co.uk wrote:
Try really really hard just to have all sites access your MySQL
database remotely.
Unfortunately this approach is not possible in the short term. The
client
applications
regarding this
The fault is that
almost nobody does it right: they neglect to keep an 'unaltered
central copy' and think they can cross-apply journals each time two
databases talk to one-another. That does not work for various reasons.
Would a central repository of journals that can be applied
On 7 Oct 2009, at 7:20pm, Adam DeVita wrote:
regarding this
The fault is that
almost nobody does it right: they neglect to keep an 'unaltered
central copy' and think they can cross-apply journals each time two
databases talk to one-another. That does not work for various
reasons.
Simon Slavin wrote:
On 7 Oct 2009, at 7:20pm, Adam DeVita wrote:
regarding this
The fault is that
almost nobody does it right: they neglect to keep an 'unaltered
central copy' and think they can cross-apply journals each time two
databases talk to one-another. That does not work for
You have to be really careful
Absolutely. Even if you know the order of updates (which I do). If site A
updates an off line record in a cached copy after site B deletes it other
sites can receive the change records in order and have the record re-appear
(via insert or replace).
One can also
On 7 Oct 2009, at 8:33pm, John Elrick wrote:
Isn't this a variation of the DVCS problem? In other words, would it
be correct in saying that the underlying issue is treating this as a
database problem, rather than it being a versioning problem which
happens to involve a database?
Yes yes
Simon Slavin wrote:
On 7 Oct 2009, at 8:33pm, John Elrick wrote:
Isn't this a variation of the DVCS problem? In other words, would it
be correct in saying that the underlying issue is treating this as a
database problem, rather than it being a versioning problem which
happens to
11 matches
Mail list logo
