At 12:33 PM 27/09/01 -0500, Woody wrote:

>It is my understanding that the use of localhost is only necessary when you
>have both local user(s) and remote user(s) connected to the same database at
>the same time. If you have single users, then you can either use local mode
>or the machines' name or localhost. I prefer using the computer name at all
>times and this has worked for me so far.

This is the dilemma. I realise I'm stating the obvious, in that when
distributing an application one has to cater for all scenarios, not only on
installation but in the future. If computer name works in all cases I'll
certainly go with that, but what happens when (a) there is no hosts file or
(b) the computer has no name, which i think can be the case in a simple
stand-alone setup.

>All of my tests indicate that Windows reads the hosts file whenever it needs
>to resolve a name. I have made dynamic changes to it (such as when
>installing an app) and I haven't had to reboot to have it read the new
>entries. It may be that an entry that is changed (not added) is read at
>startup but I haven't actually run that type of specific test.

It's just that I had a case earlier this month when a client who had just
changed to my localhost version (since shelved) reported that he was unable
to connect even after making the entry in the hosts file. I suggested that
he re-boot, after which the problem disappeared. I was not on site, so it
may have been something else. I'm afraid I don't know which Windows version
was involved.

Peter