Hi Scott On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:51 PM, scott <[email protected]> wrote: > Hopefully a simple architecture question... > > I have hundreds of laptop users that need to replicate hundreds of PDFs > with several hundred pages each. > > For each PDF, I create a document with it as an inline attachment... > everything is fine. > If I later edit or add a field, maybe to many of the documents, the entire > document (or > documents) get replicated.
There's a new replicator being developed for some time now (Damien started it, and I resumed his work). This new replicator no longer does that. It only transfer attachments that are not already in the target database. Right now it's unstable (specially for pull replications). I expect it to be close very close to finished within 1 or 2 weeks. Ping me if I forget to let you know when to test it for your use case. regargs, > > This discourages me from editing the meta info for each document as I know > it's > going to create a large replication task for such small updates. > > Is it better to create (for each PDF), say a standalone attachment, with > minimal > fields (just enough to identify it). And then create another associated > document that > contains more rich meta information that may change quite a bit? Smells a > little > kludgy. > > Or is there a better way to handle this? > > Thanks a bunch... > -- Filipe David Manana, [email protected], [email protected] "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
