>i have 5 sales people using an access database on there local machines i
>want
> to split the database and combine the backends  on the server .  i also
> need
> to create security so they cannot see each others records.  is this
> possible
> or should i split the database keep in local on there machines and then
> how
> would i combine their backends to 1 master file to run my reports.  I am
> not
> very familier with access
>
> --
> Message posted via AccessMonster.com
> http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-security/200609/1
>

"Chris Mills" <phad_nospam@cleardotnet.nz> wrote in message
news:ORs4CBf5GHA.4604@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> You would need to implement replication for your database.
>
> I would see that as overkill. I have read that the only person who really
> understands replication is MichKa, which is not a satisfactory outcome
> whatever name one chooses.
>
> Replication is for backup reasons. The posters question is otherwise
> security.
> Why the hell would Lynn Trapp (who by his own hand doesn't receive this)
> suggest replication?
>
> Access Security (User Level Security) has an arguable level of
> "safe-keeping",
> basically a lot to non-programmers and almost zilch to experienced
> programmers. It doesn't seem to me to make much difference whether you
> separate functionality (and data) into separate files or not, though it
> could
> make a difference if you physically separated data (for instance, if
> employee
> salaries were only on the accountant's machine with no reasonable network
> access)
>
> I think, being generous, either Lynn misread your post or I did.
>
> Chris
>
>

>> I would see that as overkill. I have read that the only person who really
>> understands replication is MichKa, which is not a satisfactory outcome
>> whatever name one chooses.
>
>Chris,
>Where have you been? Haven't seen you around here in ages. You are
>absolutely right that replication is a big bite to chew and MichKa knows it
>better than anyone.
>
>> Replication is for backup reasons. The posters question is otherwise
>> security.
>> Why the hell would Lynn Trapp (who by his own hand doesn't receive this)
>> suggest replication?
>
>Replication is for more than backup.
>
>> I think, being generous, either Lynn misread your post or I did.
>
>I'll admit that on either count.
>
>>> You would need to implement replication for your database.
>>
>[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>
>> Chris

> I have 5 salespeople and am trying to build a database that 1) can
> keep a sales persons clients private( no snooping eyes from other
> salespeople) 2) i need to run reports on activities for all my
> salespeople combined .  What i have done so far is split the database
> for each guy with the front end on their  computer and  the backend
> on the server. I have made a folder that all 5 backends are in,
> backend are named after the salesperson.  Now i need to figure out
> how to combine those 5 backends into 1   or figure out how to run my
> reports from 5 different backends.  hope this explains it a little
> better Lynn Trapp wrote:
>>> I would see that as overkill. I have read that the only person who
>>> really understands replication is MichKa, which is not a
>>> satisfactory outcome whatever name one chooses.
>>
>> Chris,
>> Where have you been? Haven't seen you around here in ages. You are
>> absolutely right that replication is a big bite to chew and MichKa
>> knows it better than anyone.
>>
>>> Replication is for backup reasons. The posters question is otherwise
>>> security.
>>> Why the hell would Lynn Trapp (who by his own hand doesn't receive
>>> this) suggest replication?
>>
>> Replication is for more than backup.
>>
>>> I think, being generous, either Lynn misread your post or I did.
>>
>> I'll admit that on either count.
>>
>>>> You would need to implement replication for your database.
>>>
>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>>
>>> Chris
>
> --
> Message posted via AccessMonster.com
> http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/access-security/200610/1