replicas and synchronizing (1 Viewer)

[carmucha]

hello. can anyone help me with replica conflicts?
i need to work with 10 replicas and synchronize with a master, but anyone can make changes and modify the records on the other replicas. is there a solution for that? why access doesn't recognize the changes as a conflict?
Thank you all.

 

[boblarson]

What type of changes? If you mean data, yes replicas are meant to be able to let different users have the ability to change data and then when synched with the master the other replicas will get updated with the changed data too. There are those instances where someone will make a change to a record and someone else will too and then there is a conflict, which needs to be addressed in the master database.

 

[carmucha]

What type of changes? If you mean data, yes replicas are meant to be able to let different users have the ability to change data and then when synched with the master the other replicas will get updated with the changed data too. There are those instances where someone will make a change to a record and someone else will too and then there is a conflict, which needs to be addressed in the master database.

Thank you Bob!
My problem is that when 2 different replicas change the same record, there's no conflict! just get updated the last change.
So if you by mistake, change the record from someone else in your replica, and then synch with the master, it will modify it, and then the original record will be too, when first replica synch again. if you handle a lot of data this modification can pass without you knowing it, and then when you realize that, it could be too late.

 

[boblarson]

It's something that you can't totally control. But, you could change your forms so that they have to click SAVE in order to save and you can give them a message box that asks them if they really do want to change that information.

But, there's not much else that can be done, at least that I know of.

 

[carmucha]

It's something that you can't totally control. But, you could change your forms so that they have to click SAVE in order to save and you can give them a message box that asks them if they really do want to change that information.

But, there's not much else that can be done, at least that I know of.

I've found a way!!, but i had to do the database again. if you select for each table (before making a db replicable) properties, and then the option Row level tracking, it will identify a conflict every time you change a record, or just add data to one record already saved. and then on the conflict viewer you decide. (and i'm in charge, so no modifications will pass without knowing.)
Thank u again!

 

[dfenton]

I just don't understand why field-level conflict resolution would be a problem. If two people update two different fields, don't you want the changes merged?

Another way to force this even with field-level resolution would be have a field that you stamp with date/time and username each time a record is saved. Since the same fields are being updated at all replicas each time each record is updated, that will force conflicts on the same field.

But I don't see why you would not consider merger of two different field edits to be a good thing!

Keep in mind also that you may have a replica priority issue. If all your replicas don't have the same replica priority, you could have the higher priority replicas always winning without presenting a conflict. I prefer all editing replicas to have the same priority. What I work for is:

DM: 100
Editing replicas: 90
Synch hubs: 81

If you don't pay attention to how you create your replicas, you can end up with some weird things in regard to replica priorities.

--
David W. Fenton
David Fenton Associates
http://dfenton.com/DFA/

--
David W. Fenton
David Fenton Associates
http://dfenton.com/DFA/