I would most definitely argree on that one... ...I've seen too many bodges and work arounds in my time.
Let the db engine deal with the replication and leave the app to do their stuff. Ther is a question of wether the replication should be asynchronous or synchronous with db updates... the former means the apps will continue without waiting for the replication but would mean the two databases are out of sync for a period of time.
I've seen situation were (near) real-time data is being pushed into a db only with the replicated copy ages behind. Just pray you don't query a db with old data in!!!
Andi
Andrew Savory a.savory@btinternet.com on 11/07/2001 10:15:29 To: ashley@turton.com cc: Andrew Chandler/PSD/LONDON/FTI@FTI, alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Alug] Sending information between databases
On Wed, 11 Jul, 2001 at 9:50 +0100, Ashley T. Howes Ph.D. wrote:
It's a general question more than anything. Assume the database does not support native replication.
Hrm.
All I can say is, perhaps it's time to consider a database that DOES support native replication? Doing it yourself is going to be at best tricky, at worst prone to errors and omissions. When you're talking about customers valuable data, this is a BAD thing.
There's plenty of free databases out there that support it, so there's little cost argument against (aside from time to implement). Heck, even MySQL supports replication now, and you should all know my thoughts on *that* particular RDBMS-wannabe by now.... ;-)
Andrew.