Developers are working in two different locations in differents countries, instead of having one TFS db in one location (and others connecting from another place), is it possible to have 2 replicated sites of TFS2010, each on a different server and some kind of nightly synchronisation?
We support this scenario with TFS Proxy. It stores a local cache of Version Control data on the remote location.
There is no counterpart for Work Items.
Replication is possible, because it is just a SQL Server feature. But you will have lots of conflicts during the synchronization. It is not a supported scenario, and not recommended.
Related
We're developing an aspx project with Visual Studio 2010 Professional, SQL Server 2008 R2 and Team Foundation Server 2010. Since the development is being carried out in multiple offices, each developer has their own local instances of the databases.
I want to bring these multiple databases under source control (or at least the schemas of the DB, structure and stored procedures - data doesn't matter to me). My preferred approach is to add database projects to the VS solution, which is already source controlled in TFS. Any changes will be distributed by TFS, and can be deployed locally.
The problem I'm having is that the database projects contain a reference to a local database instance (server & name). When someone gets the latest version of my changes, they will have a reference to my local DB instance (which is different to their local DB instance). They would need to change the DB details (thus checking the dbproj out) in order to get my updates.
So, is there any way that the database server & name can be left out of source control while the schemas remain under source control? Any help would be much appreciated!
I'm not sure if you can. However, you could use an alias, so all of the developers use a database on their local machine, but referenced by the same alias.
Take a look at: http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/1620/how-to-setup-and-use-a-sql-server-alias/ for how to set an alias up.
That way you can separate the database from the connection details.
I'm involved in developing a unique enforced database source control solution called DBmaestro TeamWork.
It has a plugin to SSMS which allows the developer to work directly on the database objects (change their working environment), run their tests and then perform Check-In which reads the metadata (tables' structure, procedures, functions, views etc.) to the version control repository.
With the Impact Analysis it is easy to merge changes from different databases to a single database.
The impact analysis algorithm perform 3-way analysis (not just a simple compare & sync) to identify changes origin from developerA which should not be reverted when developer merge his changes and it ignores the database name when running the impact analysis or generating the delta script.
We have 4 products and each supports below 4 datasources.
Oracle
SQL server 2005
DB2
Datopia
Now We are building Administration product which will interact will all the products and hence their databases.We have some requirements where we have to access tables from different datasources in a single query.We initially thought of using Oracle transparent gateway to create DB links and then access tables in different datasources. But this requires oracle to be installed for one of the products. This restrictions cannot be brought in our environment(For example among 4 products 2 may have SQL server installation and other two may have DB2 installation). Which is the best way to connect to all datasources with out any restriction. One more thing, we are using java to connect to these databases. Thanks in advance.
You don't say what kind of framework your client software uses. But if it uses Java, dotnet, or PERL, you will be able to use that framework's data access modules to connect to the various table servers. You can connect to all of them from a single client process easily enough.
You db access won't be perfectly transparent. You'll need some aspects of your program to be Oracle- or SQL-Server- specific, for example. On the other hand, if you do this right, it won't be hard to add MySQL and PostgreSQL support if your customers need it.
You'll have a fairly steep QA burden -- you'll need to test with at least one and two instances of all four table servers connected simultaneously to make sure everything works.
But this kind of product usually has high value, so you should be able to justify the QA effort.
I have a two-part application, where there is a central database that is edited, and then at certain times, the data is released and distributed as its own application. I would like to use a standalone database for the central database (MySQL, Postgres, Oracle, SQL Server, etc.) and then have a reliable export to an embedded database (probably SQLite) for distribution.
What tools/processes are available for such an export, or is it a practice to be avoided?
EDIT: A couple of additional pieces of information. The distributed application should be able to run without having to connect to another server (ex: your spellchecker still works even you don't have internet), and I don't want to install a full DB server for read-only access to the data.
If you really only want your clients to have read-access to the offline data it should not be that difficult to update your client-data manually.
A good practice would be to use the same product for the server database and the client database. You wouldn't have to write SQL-Statements twice since they use the same SOL-Dialect and same features.
Firebird for example offers a server
and an embedded version.
Also Microsoft offers their MS SQL Server
as a mobile version (compact edition) and there are
also Synchronization services
provided by Microsoft (good blog
describing sync services in visual
studio:
http://keithelder.net/blog/archive/2007/09/23/Sync-Services-for-SQL-Server-Compact-Edition-3.5-in-Visual.aspx)
MySQL has a product which is called "MySQLMobile" but I never actually used it.
I can also recommend SQLite as an embedded database since it is very easy to use.
Depending on your bandwidth and data amount you could even download the whole database and delete the old one. (in Firebird for example only copy the database files and it will also work with the mobile version) Very easy - BUT you have to know if it will work for your scenario. If you have more data you will need something more flexible and sophisticated, only updating the data that really changed.
i have an access front end. the backend is a sql server database. can i have users download the runtime and have the full functionality of being able to edit the sql server database from the access front end? why is it free? what makes it different from the whole version?
In a nutshell, the Access Runtime version allows you to distribute an Access Database application to machines that do not have Access or Office installed. It won't allow you to open the database in design view or to make any changes to the database apart from adding or editing data. They can contain the data tables or can be set up using linked tables so that you have a central database (in some cases a shared .mdb file on a network, or something like SQL server)
Because many Office 2007 installations are not the professional version (Home and Student, Small Business etc) which does not include Access, making the runtime freely available is to encourage Access Developers to build databases which may be used in such cases or even in instances where office is not installed at all.
See: Running in Runtime vs. Full Access 2007
In a nutshell, the runtime version allows you to change data but not objects (forms, reports, queries, etc).
If I am running an organization that has 50 .net developers and all are using SQL Server, what is the best way to make a single SQL Server available to them?
Here is some of the concerns that I want to be careful about
Should I configure database users per project or per user? or both?
Should I provide single SQL Server instance?
Edit:
How can I track changes done by each user in database?
There are some more concerns but I think getting answer of these two will be a good starting point.
You should definitely configure a database per project, as only project specific items should be in that database. Also for backup and restore purposes a database per project will be a good idea.
Configuring databases for your developers depends on how many developers will actually develop for the database: create tables, views etc. Database developers should probably have some sort of test copy of the database they can use to develop their end of things, while the 'regular' developers work against a published copy of this database:
So a setup could be: 2 databases per project, one for db development and one for other development.
This way changes to the database scheme can first be developed and tested before pushed out to the rest of the developers.