🚀 go-pugleaf

JD wrote:

> To be more accurate, it will make changes to the db that server
> thinks is the live db *if* the client is connected to the
> server.

> Well not really because to do it that way, the server side
> would have to maintain different paths for each user and then
> how would the user get the server to browse for them?

There are many aspects of your database that I'm not aware of.
So I find it difficult to react on your questions. I remember
that a time ago you were going to make a server for your database
that would only allow clients to write to certain records. The writing
itself -including opening of files- was done by each individual client.

If you want individual backups for each user than just add the username
to the backuppath.

> Then they would not be able to use my program ... they'd have
> to use say NotePad which would almost certainly result in a
> corrupted file.

This I do not understand. Why would your client be unable to read
a read-only file ? Your clients wont have the intention to change
backups is it ?

>>In your other post you said that you backup in the same
>>directory. That looks like bad design for me.

> If that's what the user does ... what are you to do?

Let your client or server take care for backups.

> I noted above the problem that I have with using my server to
> access multiple db's at the same time.

It can even handlemore then one db. Great!

> Do you have a better
> idea?

This is all not specific enough to give an advise I think.

Hans.