Replication Manager for Access 2003

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

scook11@sbcglobal.net - 09 Jun 2005 21:16 GMT

We currently have an Access 2000 database that is replicated. We use
the Replication Manager to synchronize the data (we use indirect
replication). Now if we want to upgrade to Access 2003, what do we use
to synchronize the data with? (we still want to use indirect
replication). Maybe this is an exercise in futility? Does this make
sense to do?

Reply to this Message

Cheval - 09 Jun 2005 22:48 GMT

We continue to use the Access 2000 Replication manager with Office 2003.

We currently have an Access 2000 database that is replicated. We use
the Replication Manager to synchronize the data (we use indirect
replication). Now if we want to upgrade to Access 2003, what do we use
to synchronize the data with? (we still want to use indirect
replication). Maybe this is an exercise in futility? Does this make
sense to do?

Reply to this Message

David W. Fenton - 10 Jun 2005 01:50 GMT

> We currently have an Access 2000 database that is replicated. We
> use the Replication Manager to synchronize the data (we use
> indirect replication). Now if we want to upgrade to Access 2003,
> what do we use to synchronize the data with? (we still want to use
> indirect replication). Maybe this is an exercise in futility?
> Does this make sense to do?

If you're replicating only data (as you should be), then there won't
be a problem, as the only differences between the A2K format and the
A2K3 format are *Access* properties, not Jet.

Remember, the default file format for every version of Access from
2K on is A2K.

And also keep in mind that replication is a *Jet* feature, not an
Access one, so as long as you're on Jet 4, the A2K versions should
continue to work.

Signature

David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Reply to this Message

scook11@sbcglobal.net - 10 Jun 2005 14:14 GMT

I understand what you are saying, but my main question is why would we
really want to upgrade to Access 2003? It seems there is no advantage
if the only reason you are using Access is to replicate your data with
the Replication Manager.

Reply to this Message

Paul Overway - 10 Jun 2005 15:18 GMT

There really isn't much reason. The database format is the same, and only a
few new features were added...and some of the new "features" suck.

Signature

Paul Overway
Logico Solutions
http://www.logico-solutions.com

>I understand what you are saying, but my main question is why would we
> really want to upgrade to Access 2003? It seems there is no advantage
> if the only reason you are using Access is to replicate your data with
> the Replication Manager.

Reply to this Message

David W. Fenton - 10 Jun 2005 17:02 GMT

> I understand what you are saying, but my main question is why
> would we really want to upgrade to Access 2003? It seems there is
> no advantage if the only reason you are using Access is to
> replicate your data with the Replication Manager.

I hear that, from a developer's standpoint, A2K3 is easier to
use/more stable than A2K.

I still do most of my development in A97, so I wouldn't know.

Signature

David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Reply to this Message