I don't even think I should try to store the security tables in DB2, agree?



So I will just have a separate SQL instance for security? I am fine with that and see pretty detailed instructions on how to support the tables in a separate database.



Just really making sure I didn't miss anything here. Does the above sound solid to you?



Also, how would this work if I decide to architect my application so that it will support a truly "disconnected mode" as in I just found out that users might need to run it at times on a laptop with no internet access, then save the data to the server at a later time. I was going to just use XML or a local SQLEXPRESS or SQL Compact database, but I'm not sure how not being able to connect to the security tables will work in that scenario.




Keith Chisarik

I think your best bet would be to use SQL Server 2005 Compact:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/compact/sscecomparison.mspx

It's basically an expanded version of MS Access: just an *.mdf file on disk that can be accessed as if it was a SQL Server.  So, since you only need the local data it's perfect for you since you won't have to provide access to more than one user, and the RBS won't know the difference.  Keeps you from having to install SQL Server 2005 Express.