Bob's FE update utility

The reason is that database server is a Slackware, and I would rather that it is dedicated as a database server, and don't have to play file server now & then as we do have another server for that role. The idea was that I'd have the link point to a networked folder on the file server, and that "BE" would be just a copy of FE but with a local table instead of linked table to which each production copy of FE would examine. Therefore when I want to modify FE, I just swap in the Master FE with local table altered.

So that master FE would have a local table *and* a linked table pointing to it using the address of networked address; so it's self-referencing in that case. The production copy would be able a copy of the same FE but I'm assuming that the linked table inside would still point to the same networked folder (so is no longer self-referencing). The idea being that the master FE would be essentially the BE to check for new version. But to work, the production FE must have a linked table to the master FE's version table and since production FE is copied from the same master FE, the linked table has to be present in the master FE.... unless Bob''s utility automagically creates the linked table, (I'm suspecting not, based on Bob's recent post and his document)

I wouldn't know if I can even link a table in a database to its own table (will have to test when I'm in front of right computer) but wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking any other issues with using Master FE as the version-checking BE.
 
Ken, will consider that one, though funnily enough, my intention was to "simplify" (:eek:) by having just one file (e.g. FE Master) which also acted as the backend.
 
I understand but I think the hang up is that it's fine to have 2 or more backends. In your case you keep the SQL backend that has all of your production data. The second back end is like a system backend that houses tables and data that is only used by the database for system stuff. I think all you need to do is deploy it all just like Bob instructs with additional links to your sql tables...

Or am I missing something? How big is your FE?
 
Actually, that's what I had in mind- one backend pointing to the database server and another backend pointing to the file server (linking only the version table). The question was whether that backend on the file server can be also the FE master.

I hope that helped cleared up the mud I've spread around. ;)

It's 2 MB, BTW.
 
Ah... I see. I suppose you could but to me it seems things would be lot easier to manage by keeping it in a BE on the file server.

FYI - I would even consider not even doing a version check on something that small and just copy the FE over everytime they open the db. By the time you did all of that checking, etc you could have a new one in place.
 
The networked folder in question is actually via WAN (VPN) as we have remote offices. Pretty sure it'll be slow as molasses to download even that small file.

Actually, when you mention that, you have a point. I don't know if it's good idea as corruption is much more likely when link is across WAN, even though all we would be doing is checking the version, and I definitely wouldn't want a persistent link as well. OpenDatabase method would actually be more appropriate (but not safe from potential corruption).

Hmm.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom