Is Multi-User Access of Disconnected Recordsets possible?

[Thom]

Hi all! Rolling along, I was leaning towards setting up tests as disconnected recordsets which new employees could call up & take. But I couldn't find out 1 potential problem-can more than 1 user access an .adtg file at once? i.e. if 10 new employees all try to take the level 1 orientation test simultaneously(more or less <g>), )and they're all trying to get the level1.adtg file will this work??

If not-I guess it's back to the database for storing the info! Thanks for any help!

[Clunietp]

Why are you using a persisted RS?

Disconnected recordsets are usually used so you don't have to keep a persistent connection to your database....having many users connected to a MDB or ADTG is essentially the same thing, so you're not really using a disconnected recordset, you're just using a portion of the main table that is stored in another file.

A disconnected recordset isn't usually persisted to a file, its kept in a client side cursor. You modify the cursor as required, reconnect to your main DB, and perform an updatebatch

[Thom]

>Why are you using a persisted RS?
Because I was trying to avoid putting too much unnecessary info in the actual DB. I was thinking of only having the RESULTS of the new employee tests be in the database, and the tests themselves would be disconnected recordsets that the new employees could access when they took the tests.

>having many users connected to a MDB or ADTG is >essentially the same thing, so you're not really using a >disconnected recordset, you're just using a portion of the >main table that is stored in another file.

Hmmm...I didn't know that! So are you saying that I might as well put the testdata into the database, because there will be no performance difference overall? If that's so, OK; I'm primarily concerned with not overloading the DB's size capacity, & I was hopin' to get around that limitation with this 'trick'.

[Clunietp]

So what is the problem with having all users access 1 database? Your app should be able to save the "unnecessary" data in variables/objects or even a local persisted recordset ... I'm not familiar with your situation, however....