Hello,

I had the same question time ago, and I posted at MS Forums - please have a 
look at my post at 
http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/syncdevdiscussions/thread/102fd11e-d7ce-479e-a07b-b2e836f3f87e
 - at the end min_active_rowversion is what we use.

And please read carefully the requirements for when you restore the database - 
especially because min_active_rowversion will reset and MS Sync Framework will 
select all the records, which is slow and painful... It's so fun working with 
this MS Sync thing!

Good luck,

Fernando Nájera

--- In [email protected], "samcarleton" <scarleton@...> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In [email protected], "reinier_olislagers" 
> <reinierolislagers+yahoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sam, 
> > 
> > I seem to remember the MS Sync Framework has something to do with ADO.Net. 
> > In that case, you may have more luck in the Firebird .Net list:
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-net-provider
> 
> Granted that MS Sync Framework does use .Net, it does not HAVE to use .Net, 
> it could use OLE.DB, ODBC, or simply used to sync data on the hard drive or 
> even you own proprietary data source, as long as you have some basic 
> concepts. 
> 
> MS Sync does a very nice job of explaining the basic concept of how it works 
> here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sync/bb821992#syncex  Again, this has 
> NOTHING to do with .Net, SQL Server, or any specific database, it ONLY has to 
> do with the concept of syncing data between three different 
> locations/replicas.
> 
> What I am looking for is...  Does Firebird expose the basic concept?
> 
> This basic concept is simple:  Each and every insert and update on tables 
> being synced needs to a database wide unique 'version' AND the code accessing 
> the sync process needs to be able to find the lowest version that is current 
> in a transaction (aka is NOT valid to use yet).
> 
> I do admin this is not posted in the correct forum the correct forum should 
> be the FB engine development forum, where ever that might be located.  I am 
> posting here because I figure they read this forum, too.
> 
> Sam
>


Reply via email to