""Helen Borrie (TeamIBO)"" <helebor@...> wrote in message
news:5.1.0.14.2.20020513233404.072436f0@......

> At 01:53 PM 13-05-02 +0100, Dave Bullar wrote:
>
> >""Helen Borrie (TeamIBO)"" <helebor@...> wrote in message
> >news:5.1.0.14.2.20020513215511.0486f5c0@......
> > > >Now as local database A acesses this queue does the data vanish? What
> > > >happens when at a different instant, local database B accesses the

queue

> >?
> >I would like to get to grips with the 'events' that arise and what the
> >'effective pipline mechanism' as Jason describes it is.
> >
> >If there are 10 records in the source queue of which satellite A needs

all

> >but satellite B only needs 5 because it got the others earlier ?? You

see

> >my mind is boggling :-}
>
> oh...interrrresting....
> but doable, I think. The replication process itself should take care of
> ignoring, i.e. not updating, rows that are not different, since each "act
> of replication" uses the latest data in both databases to make that
> decision. It doesn't store values, only keys, and columns that
> changed. Jason will have to comment on how the "mashing down" of changes
> would work if it was likely to affect different outlier databases in
> different ways.
> Brainstorming, really. <g>
>

Thanks Helen.
To sum up. What I want is a multi-simultaneous-user replicator process in
the same way as a database itself is multi simultaneous user. I hoped that
you or perhaps Jason was going to assure me that this indeed is what Jason's
system was ?
Anyway I am still struggling to understand it !

Dave