locked
Using 2 Synchronization Services Back to Back RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi there,

     

    I thought in theory this idea should work, but seems as though  the theory is somewhat flawed..........

     

     

    Basically what i am trying to do is this,  use the SQL CE  database as a 'Passthrough' database to synchronize a sql database with another sql database. 

    I decided to concentrate on bidirection mode first ( there is no need to worry about reversing the direction).

     

    It appears that what happens is that  upon the initial synchronisation the Host database is registered with SQL CE thus forcing the SQL CE database to only synchronize with this host database. thus resulting in only being able to synchronize one database with the SQL CE

     

     

    Why??? do this .... the reason is simple, we have a web application that is hosted on an intranet, a customer has asked us to persue the avenue of  taking the application offline and  working with it offline, then synchronising upon reconnecting to the network. 

     

    after doing a bit of research i discovered that  asp.net web applications dont like SQL  and SQL CE references in the same application, so instead of cattering for two types of connections i thought it would be easier to  work with a "pass through" idea

     

    I will be eternally grateful if anyone has any opinions on this idea

     

    thanks

     

    • Moved by Max Wang_1983 Friday, April 22, 2011 10:36 PM forum consolidation (From:SyncFx - Microsoft Sync Framework Database Providers [ReadOnly])
    Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:34 PM

All replies

  • Hi Cathie,
     
    Interesting scenario you have here. But let's me say that the current implementation of the SQL CE client provider assumes one server relationship; thus when changes are uploaded the client pushes its watermark such that it won't enumerate these changes again in the next sync. This is basically what breaks your scenario. Had the client establishes another relationship for the second server, it would have stored another set of anchors independent of the first one and that's how you would arrive to the pass-through behavior.
     
    Another thing to note here too is that the client provider does not track changes it received through sync since it won't upload them back again to the server. With that in mind, I don't think it is possible to do pass-through idea using the client provider.
     
    Thanks
    Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:21 PM