@NOdrcSPAM: "I am currently looking at replicas and think I have a plan, but am 
looking for some reassurance.
I have a database on our server and 3 employees with laptops who want to 
take this database home with them. The database on the server will 
become the Design Master and is a global replica. Do I need to create 
one local replica and copy that to the users' laptops or do I have to 
actually be on each individual laptop and create a replica from there?
Once this is done, should the users use the master when at work and only 
use the replicas on their laptop when away from the office?
Thanks for any help,
Darrell"
    @dXXXfenton: "Darrell Childress <email_address> wrote in
news:4321b19b$0$3734$<email_address>: 
<quote>
Don't mess around with Global and Anonymous replicas. Just use plain
old replicas. 
Anyway, don't convert your main db to the DM. Instead, move your
main db to a safe location, and make *that* the DM. Then, create a
replica in the location where the old DB used to be. The result is
that a replica and *not* the DM will be used for editing and as the
hub for direct replication with the laptops. 
You can copy since you're just initializing the laptops, but it's
really better to open up Access on each of the laptops, then open
your hub replica, and create a new replica from it on the laptop.
That way, the hub replica knows these laptop replicas exist, and
each of the laptops will know that the other laptop replicas exist. 
That seems to me to be preferable for decreasing the possibility of
conflicts. 
What I do is have two different front ends on the laptop, one I call
"Travel database" and that's the one that is linked to the laptop's
replica, while the other front end is linked to the replica on the
server for use when they are connected to the LAN. 
You could also program it so that when the laptop user synchs with
the hub on the LAN, they are given the option to then relink to that
hub replica for editing. Then when they are going on the road,
they'd synch again, and this time it would offer them the option of
relinking to the laptop replica. 
That would be simple from an end user point of view, but requires a
bit of programming (not a lot, though). 
One other thing: you *must* *must* *must* split your database so
there's a front end with forms, reports, queries, macors and
modules, and a back end with nothing but data tables. Only the back
end with data tables should be replicated. The reason for this is
that replication of Access objects (forms, reports, etc.) is highly
unstable and almost always leads to corruption and eventual loss of
the entire project. Secondly, why replicate things that don't need
to be shared? 
So, each user should have their own front end.
On the LAN, eveyone will edit the hub replica back end (and not the
DM, which is squirrelled away somewhere safe and only synched with
the hub replica once a week or once a month to keep it from expiring
(the default expiration period is 1000 days). 
When the laptops are out of the office, the users edit the back end
replica on their laptop. 
The front end is not at any point part of the replication scenario,
though it may include code for doign the synchrnoizations for the
users so they don't have to navigate the Access menus and be sure
they choose the correct replica to synch with. 
Also, you need some mechanism, either manual or programmitc, for
chaecking for conflicts, and then someone has to be responsibile for
resolving them. 
David W. Fenton                        <url>
danielpearson@example.net                <url>"
    @NOdrcSPAM: "David,
Thank you so much for such a detailed reply. That is everything that I 
need to know. I plan to institute this today.
One final question. You say "Don't mess around with Global and Anonymous 
replicas. Just use plain old replicas." When I go to create a replica, I 
have to choose between Global, Local, and Anonymous. It defaults to 
Global. Are you saying to use Local for all replicas?
Also, thanks for the advice on splitting the database. I will.
Darrell
<quote>"
    @dXXXfenton: "Darrell Childress <email_address> wrote in
news:432588f3$0$3735$<email_address>: 
<quote>
Sorry  I've never done Jet 4 replication (none of my replicated
clients use anything but A97), so I didn't know the terminology. 
Yes, you were right on the front end  Global replicas are what you
want. Anything else can lead to problems: 
  <url>
Michael Kaplan was once the premier expert on replication (he
probably still is, even though he hasn't been working with it for
several years now), and I learned most of what I know from him. If
he says it's problematic, you can take it to the bank. 
That's not a replication issue  there is no multi-user Access
application on the planet that should not be split. 
David W. Fenton                        <url>
danielpearson@example.net                <url>"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 3, "forum_name": "microsoft.public.access.replication.20140315.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-microsoft.public.parquet'}