Subject | IB_Connection 'funny' |
---|---|
Author | lester@lsces.globalnet.co.uk |
Post date | 2001-01-17T14:20:55Z |
I have just spent several hours tracking an anoying little bug, only it
was not what I was looking for.
I have a number of machines with Interbase on. One master, and the
others slave units which maintain a local copy of their bit of the data,
and can carry on even if the network link is down.
Yesterday I started to get a problem with records not updating
correctly, they were deleting without enabling the next update, so I
thought I had a problem with the messaging system.
When you load the database name with HLFX:c:\data\equipment.gdb, the
server name becomes HLFX. The problem that has appeared, any yet is
working quite happily in the field with the same versions of library, is
that a copy of C:\data\equipment.gdb is not replacing the server name
with a blank entry, so the slave continues to access the master copy (
and sees the record deleted, before the message telling it to do the
delete ).
Anybody any ideas on why is should have stopped working? Other program
modules are quite happy addressing the local copy, using the same
registry setting, so I assume it is some setting I have changed.
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
was not what I was looking for.
I have a number of machines with Interbase on. One master, and the
others slave units which maintain a local copy of their bit of the data,
and can carry on even if the network link is down.
Yesterday I started to get a problem with records not updating
correctly, they were deleting without enabling the next update, so I
thought I had a problem with the messaging system.
When you load the database name with HLFX:c:\data\equipment.gdb, the
server name becomes HLFX. The problem that has appeared, any yet is
working quite happily in the field with the same versions of library, is
that a copy of C:\data\equipment.gdb is not replacing the server name
with a blank entry, so the slave continues to access the master copy (
and sees the record deleted, before the message telling it to do the
delete ).
Anybody any ideas on why is should have stopped working? Other program
modules are quite happy addressing the local copy, using the same
registry setting, so I assume it is some setting I have changed.
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services