But the thing is, why should one salesperson step on the toes of another salesperson? I mean, the ACME Co should be served by one person, because it is located in the geographical area assigned to her/him by management. Another salesperson would be assigned another co and so on. Unless, clients's branches are in many areas. This is a management issue, in my view. All we programmers can do is follow the company rules and adapt our routines accordingly.
But the basics of synchronization as described here by a few of us should be the way to go. Then you can adapt for the different situations. Rafael Copquin El 08/05/2012 05:25 p.m., MB Software Solutions, LLC escribió: > On 5/8/2012 4:20 PM, Paul McNett wrote: >> On 5/8/12 1:16 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote: >>> On 5/8/2012 4:02 PM, Stephen Russell wrote: >>>>>>> 5) syncing a client to a server should block other clients from >>>>>>> syncing at the same time >>>>> Not sure about only one at a time. Makes Monday morning a bitch >>>>> when >>>>> the sales team is all present. >>> Salesman #1 updates Acme Company customer records. So does Salesman #2. >>> Who's update sticks? Is it "last change in" ? (Devil's advocate) >> I guess the rule should be whoever's update happened chronologically after >> the other >> (remember everyone is time synced). >> >> But then you have the possibility of one salesperson thinking that their >> update stuck >> (because he or she sync'd first). No big deal, since chronological is how it >> usually >> works anyway. > Right. There's no real way to avoid a mistaken update in this situation > without extensive coding. > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
