Replication Conflict

[Guest]

When one particular user replicates his database to the master, he gets a
conflict with a field called "Gen_Tempfield*0.

I don't understand what this is. I did not create a field called
"Gen_Tempfield*0 in the database. An example of the data it gives is:

Existing Database "Gen_Tempfield*0 = 642
Conflicting Database "Gen_Tempfield*0 = 602

Does anyone know what this means and how to resolve it?

I would appreciate it very much.

Thank you,

Rachel

 

[Larry Daugherty]

Hi Rachel,

While there are lots of folks responding in this newsgroup who use
Replication there is a newsgroup devoted to Replication. I've added
it to the list of newsgroups that will get this thread.

My understanding of Replication is limited and probably erroneous
because I have never deployed an application using it...

Since you didn't create the field and no one else experiences the
problem, the implication is that the design has changed in the Replica
of the person experiencing the problem. I thought that only data was
to be replicated and coordinated and that all design changes flowed
out to the replicas from the Replica Master. To that end, I would
split the application into Front End and Back End and then distribute
the Front End in the form of an MDE. Continue or initiate replication
on the Back End only. Update the Front Ends by other means. I would
also put an Autoexec macro in the Back End that Quits the application
immediately. That will have no affect on someone linking to the Back
End but will stop anyone altering the Back End design or data (unless
they know their way around it).

There are probably other and better solutions contained in the
Replication application. If so, folks in the Replication ng will make
you aware of them.

HTH

 

[David W. Fenton]

When one particular user replicates his database to the master, he
gets a conflict with a field called "Gen_Tempfield*0.

I don't understand what this is. I did not create a field called
"Gen_Tempfield*0 in the database. An example of the data it gives
is:

Existing Database "Gen_Tempfield*0 = 642
Conflicting Database "Gen_Tempfield*0 = 602

Does anyone know what this means and how to resolve it?

It's a generation number for the field named "Tempfield*0" (or,
perhaps just "Tempfield"). I would simply resolve the conflict and
keep the winning record and be done with it.

 

[David W. Fenton]

Hi Rachel,

While there are lots of folks responding in this newsgroup who use
Replication there is a newsgroup devoted to Replication. I've
added it to the list of newsgroups that will get this thread.

My understanding of Replication is limited and probably erroneous
because I have never deployed an application using it...

Since you didn't create the field and no one else experiences the
problem, the implication is that the design has changed in the
Replica of the person experiencing the problem.

Schema changes can be made only in the Design Master, so that's not
a likely explanation.

I thought that only data was
to be replicated and coordinated and that all design changes
flowed out to the replicas from the Replica Master.

From the Design Master, yes.

To that end, I would
split the application into Front End and Back End and then
distribute the Front End in the form of an MDE.

This is the only proper method for using replication, as replication
just doesn't work reliably for Access objects (forms/reports/etc.),
which means you can't replicate front ends.

 

[Larry Daugherty]

Thanks, David. But *I* didn't really want to know. I was just trying
to help OP. I'm glad you came along and correctly identified the
problem domain for OP. I actually know better than to respond viz
areas of which I know very little or nothing. The urge to be helpful
sometimes sneaks by good judgement.

Your other clarifications fit my assumptions exactly Thanks

 

[Guest]

Thank you for your response.

I intended to use a FE/BE, but was over-rulled. I will try to confince them
again.

Thanks again,

Rachel

 

[Guest]

Hi David,

Thank you for your response.

I intended to use a FE/BE, but was over-rulled. I will try to confince them
again.

If they don't agree. I will just resolve the conflict as you suggest.

Thanks again,

Rachel

 

[David W. Fenton]

I intended to use a FE/BE, but was over-rulled. I will try to
confince them again.

Then the people who overruled you are idiots. There is no properly
designed multi-user Access application (replicated or not) that is
not split. There is no such thing as a properly designed replicated
Access application that is unsplit.

This is a fact.

It's the way Access and Jet replication work.

Failure to recognize these facts can lead to corruption and data
loss.

In other words, not doing it right costs $$$$$$$.