Me too.

we have an application underway which will require some offline operation. While
it won't have masses of conflicting stuff, unique key generation would be nice.

However, I expect the offline abilities to be expanded in future, which would
make things more messy :)

Thanks,
Rob :)

Quoting Jason Pyeron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> ditto.
> 
> we have two (2) applications under way right now, which we want to do 
> something similar.
> 
> 1) n locations connected by a 90% up slow link, these locations need 
> access to each others information, and not to conflict.
> 
> 2) a port of bugzilla, which will allow offline entry/submission
> 
> -Jason Pyeron
> 
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Colin Kilburn wrote:
> 
> > Gustavo,
> > 
> > I expect to have a project soon that will require some replication,
> although perhaps with differing requirements, but I'm sure there'll be some
> overlap in requirements as well as challenges.  At minimum I'd be interested
> in discussing issues and approaches in this arena "soon" (I'm currently very
> tied up trying to finish another project.)
> > 
> > What results from these efforts (or at least parts of them) may be generic
> enough to be useful to others.  Anyone else?
> > 
> > Colin Kilburn
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >We’ve being using OJB for a while and we do like it. 
> > >While we depart from the old paradigm (delegating the "important" stuff to
> 
> > >the RDBMS) and we delegate OJB the real work, some 
> > >opportunities/challenges come to our mind.
> > >And since data/object replication is one of those opportunities, we would
> 
> > >like to address in a new project. We believe OJB is ready for a job like 
> > >this.
> > >
> > >Let’s say we have some data collection apps running in notebooks
> offsite. 
> > >Thanks to OJB, the app runs on almost any RDBMS in every notebook (hsql, 
> > >mysql, postgresql or any $$ vendor base rdbms) an in a main site storing 
> > >the objects again in an opensource or $$vendor base dbms.
> > >
> > >Once the data collectors have a network connection available (either WAN 
> > >or LAN) we would like them to "replicate" their objects with the main site
> 
> > >or with other partners. Scheduled or ad-hoc replication, it just doesn´t
> 
> > >matter. OJB would do it no matter when or where.
> > >
> > >The apps have some business objects that will remain with little or no 
> > >changes through their life cycle (like the old master tables) ; some 
> > >others will face heavy updates (customers service requests).
> > >
> > >If any of you are familiar with it, Lotus Notes/Domino type of replication
> 
> > >is the best model of the replication mechanism we would like to implement
> 
> > >in this project (but remember, at an object or better business object 
> > >level replication, not record/document level replication).
> > >
> > >Let´s dream for a minute: OJB will let us replicate objects across 
> > >different dbms, without even having the same schema (due to the 
> > >repository.xml mapping magic!!!!)
> > >
> > >Among some other things, we will need to take care of things like unique 
> > >ids across db replicas ( sequencers ), differential replication, 
> > >replication conficts etc. 
> > >
> > >Any frameworks or ideas out there? Any volunteers to start an "OJB 
> > >replicator" contribution to this great framework?
> > >
> > >Finally and again: Thanks Thomas and the whole OJB team!.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >Gustavo Faerman
> > >Buenos Aires, Argentina
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> -                                                               -
> - Jason Pyeron                   http://www.pyerotechnics.com   -
> - Partner & Sr. Manager         Pyerotechnics Development, Inc. -
> - +1 (443) 451-2697             500 West University Parkway #1S -
> - +1 (410) 808-6646 (c)         Baltimore, Maryland  21210-3253 -
> -                                                               -
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain 
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you 
> have received it in error, purge the message from your system and 
> notify the sender immediately.  Any other use of the email by you 
> is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to