On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
>> One of the reasons this idea was suggested was because my client is
>> concerned that its "crazy" to be modifying business data in a system
>> that is running and processing purchase transactions. And I'm
>> wondering whether or not this is even a concern when most people build
>> this type of application. I think its going to be painful to keep
>> track of changes between the two databases (or schemas if you prefer).
>> It sounds like this would be highly prone to errors and cause more
>> problems than it solves.
>> Thoughts?
>
> It sounds like the problem they have is that they want you to be able
> to
> make changes, but perhaps not make them active until they are all
> finished. Is that what the problem is?
>
> This can be solved in a number of ways. You can mark records as
> "testing", and then have an approval step which copies the testing
> records
> over the production records. You can also have an "active date" on
> your
> records, and then mark your records as being active in the future.
Indeed we're already doing that.
> I think we need more information on the "whys" of this before making
> clearer suggestions.
I agree completely. Unfortunately I don't have anything more concrete
to go on than my previous post above. I think the "whys" are
extremely weak. I'm going to suggest we leave things as they are and
allow the administration application to update the production database.
Thanks,
-M@
