OK, what is your main concern? Replication or user concurrency these are seperate issues/not exactly the same  . This question:
Quote:
|
User A get data from the server for modifying /deleting, but at the same time User B get data from the server for reading. After A modified/deleting the data, User B is not viewing the most updated data
|
Isn't neccesarily a replication issue, this is why SQL Server provides various levels of locking and transaction isolation. SQL Server Express can act as a server or shared repository of data with no issues. SQL Server 2005 Express has lifted the "user governor" or the previous limits of 5 concurrent users at once. You shouldn't run into real stress level or performance problems until your concurrent user count is something like 20-25, if I had to guess.
What you want to review are the different user concurrency and "stale data" approaches - - or basically verifying the user's don't step on each other in a concurrent multi-user environment.
|
__________________
"Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." ~unknown
Last edited by MKoslof; 04-22-2007 at 05:42 PM.
|