| |
Reference # |
|
| 040816-000005 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Date Updated |
|
| 08/16/2004 05:40 PM |
|
 Print Answer
|
|
| |
System Refreshes Causes Inconsistent Data |
 |
| |
Question |
| |
After sending a system refresh to a Remote, the user-defined fields on the Remote no longer display correct values. The Remote is connected to a Remote Server and obtains its refresh from the Remote Server.
VERSIONS AFFECTED:
- MaxExchange 6.0
- MaxExchange 7.0
- MaxExchange 7.5
- MaxExchange 8.0 |
|
| |
Answer |
| |
Here are two suggestions that will resolve this issue:
* Implement a policy that prevents MaxExchange Remote users from creating user-defined fields. As well, do not allow system refreshes to be processed on Remotes that are connected to a Remote Server.
* Process a full refresh to the Remote.
EXPLANATION:
In a MaxExchange n-Tier structure, a user-defined field may be assigned one value for the Type_Id on the Server and a different value for the same user-defined field on the Remote. Although MaxExchange can properly synchronize between the Server and Remote, a system refresh would result in inconsistency between the Type_Id of the UDF and the Type_Id the values are referencing. The following example will help illustrate this issue.
You have the following:
- The MaxExchange Server (MAINSRV)
- A MaxExchange Remote Server (REMSRV)
- A MaxExchange Remote (REM)
REM is connected to REMSRV, which is connected to MAINSRV.
A user-defined field (UDF) called “Coordinates” has a Type_Id of 39 on MAINSRV and REMSRV, and 34 on REM.
When you add or modify data on the “Coordinates” UDF and synchronize, MaxExchange properly handles the difference in Type_Id and compensates, resulting in the data appearing in the appropriate UDF.
However, if you issue a system refresh from REMSRV to REM, you replace the Cross-Reference file (MXZX) of REM with the one from REMSRV. This means “Coordinates” now has a Type_Id of 39, not 34. UDF references in the User-Defined Fields (MXZD) file still see “Coordinates” as 34. This results in data that appears in incorrect UDFs. |
| |
| |
How well did this answer your question? |
| |
|
|
|
|
