0

I've been working with visual studio in a corporate environment for a long time, where we have a central SQL Server set up to store the data for all our in-house programs.

I've been asked to work on a side job for a small company where they want a program that will share data from a database between a half dozen computers.
My first reflex is to get them to set up a small server, install a database and then connect to it like I usually do, but before I start I'm wondering if there is a better way to do it.

Part of my problem is that if this works out really well, there is a chance that the program could be used in other companies, and I don't want to have to set up a server and write a custom version with a custom connection string for each one.

It could be that I'm thinking to deeply about this, I'm just hoping that a little research ahead of time might save a lot of time down the road.

AndyD273
  • 7,177
  • 12
  • 54
  • 92
  • The best way would be an n-tier service-oriented architecture through CORBA encapsulated in SOAP or a fully RESTful interface with n+ backend redundancy for high-availability applications. Also throw in Node.js for extra buzzword compliance! – Dai May 23 '14 at 00:14

1 Answers1

0

Why would you need a custom build just to change the connection string ?
Just change your app App.config - or are we missing something here ? What is App.config in C#.NET? How to use it?

Community
  • 1
  • 1
blorkfish
  • 21,800
  • 4
  • 33
  • 24
  • No your probably right. I am mostly just wondering if there is a better way than to have a central server for a small company with only a few machines. Since it's mostly what I'm used to, I didn't know if there was any better ways I might be missing if I just acted like that hammer that sees all problems as central servers with databases. I guess I'd rather be told that I'm asking stupid questions than to have someone ask why I did it that way when this other way is so much better. – AndyD273 May 23 '14 at 18:04