Started by WebEngel, April 25, 2017, 06:08:10 AM
Quote from: ubacher on April 26, 2017, 07:46:00 AMI would think that if such editing would be restricted to just one user it would satisfy a large user base.And it would certainly be a lot easier to implement.
Quote from: Mario on April 26, 2017, 09:03:57 AMCreating a version of IMA which allows only one user to edit would be useless. No market.
Quote from: WebEngel on April 29, 2017, 09:14:54 AMI disagree. The use case is the server in the office and the laptop or tablet in the living room.
Quote from: Jingo on April 29, 2017, 03:21:56 PM(...)While I too welcome a version of IMA that allows write backs to the DB... I think there are many methods of accomplishing the edits currently using the tools we have available. In the end, its all about workflow though so I get wanting direct edit access.
Quote from: Jingo on April 29, 2017, 09:49:58 PMI agree Mario... I still think of IMatch as a "home user" type product though I know it is much more and use in many different environments.
Quote from: Mario on April 29, 2017, 09:20:24 AMAs I said, IMatch WebServices now support functions to change metadata, process files and lots more. We'll see all that in IMatch 2017 where it is use for many purposes. After a couple of months of gaining experience, I will start enhancing IMatch Anywhere for write back. All problems solved. For now, IMA does all what it is supposed to do.
QuoteWhat also puzzles me because I cannot have Imatch and IMA accessing one DB at the same time.
QuoteIf they are not running at the same time, concurrent changes cannot be a big issu