[AccessD] Word/Access question

Arthur:

Sounds like sending out an email message to tell everyone the email server
is down. As that isn't going to work there are other possibilities.

Of course there is always the old tried and true method of using
synchronization. It worked for some client years ago when they were moving
from office to office and would not always have a connection available. When
access did become possible they would just connect their cable press their
'sync' button.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:54 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: [AccessD] Word/Access question

Preface: there are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Sadly, I fall
into this category.

I'm doing an Access app, for a WAN with issues (nuff said). It may
frequently occur that the remote users cannot, for one reason or another,
hit the DB residing at HQ. In this event, the client would like the remotes
to fill in a Word form and email it.

I'm imagining this app deployed as follows:

1. a local FE installed on every remote, all of which point to the BE
available by satellite, if and when the technology is working. Apparently
this is intermittent. I know nothing about this part of the app.

2. In the event that the satellite connection is unavailable, it has been
mandated that the remote user should be able to fill in a Word form and
email that. (Precisely how I am to handle said emails and integrate them
into the system has been conveniently overlooked, but like George Smiley, I
plod on.)

3. In the absence of a reliable connection to HQ, then I don't see how this
can work without a local copy of the DB. I am certainly not against that,
but it drags in the replication technology -- which I have used and love,
but it costs hours to set up and every time I mention hours Client says
"Cheaper", and when I mention "Cheap" Client says "Not enough
functionality", or something like that.

4. On the Up side, there is no danger of collision on rows from the remote
users. Each remoter has her own bailiwick and no other remoter will ever
touch (or even see) the contents of her bailiwick. So that part is cool.

I guess that I'm just wondering about the best way to handle this stuff
given a WAN whose connectivity is shaky at best. I have done some WAN stuff
previously, but connectivity was not a problem then. Now it is. I suppose
that replication may be an answer. I've been there and done that and I'm
pretty good at that approach, but that was then, and I had somehow assumed
that technology had got beyond what I did in 1998. Maybe not. Maybe that old
way is the way to go.

Arthur
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com