> 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.
I think we need more information on the "whys" of this before making
clearer suggestions.
Jon
