>
>SQL 2012 allows you to have what are called "document stacks" which
>effectively can hold the scanned images even though they aren't part of
>the database base data (.mdf file), it's the equivalent of holding them
>in a "secret untouchable" folder.

Hm..sounds like a great way to take control of customers' data and only allow them to access it if they pay you for it.

One of the reasons we went with the system we did was precisely to avoid that. The documents are to be stored as ordinary documents in ordinarily accessible locations so that if I want to stop using the document management software I will still have the documents.


The documents are available using standard SQL retrieval commands, it is just that they are unavailable for people who treat Windows Explorer with distain and like to move, delete or rename documents that may well be pointed to by the database i.e data fiddlers, who normally should know better. You can of course lock it down, as you can any database data if required.

Thanks, Dave.

I thought a document management system would ordinarily do a "check-in/check-out" thing with documents like source-control systems use, and that access to the actual document storage locations via Windows Explorer would only be available to users with suitable permissions. In my case, that would be *me*; nobody else would be able to get to those locations. They'll be on a server to which I have the password, and not shared out to the network.

Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.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.

Reply via email to