Connect to database without showing the "Connect to Server" dialog box?

Is it possible to configure the SQL Server Management Studio to behave like good old Enterprise Manager, so that it automatically connects to my configured servers without showing the "Connect to Server" dialog box every time upon startup?

After successlessly searching Google and these forums, I still found no suitable answer to this question (maybe beside this one).

Thanks
Uwe

You ae right this is not possible, perhaps you can suggest that as a feature request on connect.microsoft.com ?

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||Done:

http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=180590

Thanks, Jens .|||You got my vote.

-Jens.|||Strange - they marked the ticket as "closed" and "solved", but no further comments.

Anyone knows what this actually means? IS it already present and I did not found it? Or will it be implemented in a further version?

Thanks
Uwe

conlict resolution question (merge repl)

windows 2000 / sql 2000
in the conflict resolution dialog I get the 'winner' columns listed with
data and on the right 'loser' side I see this message instead of data:
"The error described above occurred when trying to insert or update this
data at the other server. If you ignore this conflict, you should resolve it
through other means. Consider logging the details of this conflict, then
sending the log entry to your system administrator"
My issue is that the subscriber machine ran out of hard drive space so all
the inserts (and some updates) were failing to get written to the
subscriber. Suprisingly sql server says thats a 'conflict'. I would rather
something like that 'fail' replication so its discovered sooner. Anyway:
1) I want to keep the update that occured at the publisher but I don't know
if thats the 'winner' or 'loser' here? its not clear. The winner side shows
data, and the loser side shows the message I pasted above. I have several of
these and I am not personally familiar with the db data so I can't tell from
looking at the data if its the 'updated' one or not. How do I know? (it sure
would be nice if the interface actually told you which machine's data you
were looking at along with 'winner' or 'loser')
Hello,
I have the same problem. I think it will be created by multiple
publications on the same table. Is this also you're replication
environment? I don't have resolved the problem at this time. If you do,
please can you send me your resolution?
djc wrote:
> windows 2000 / sql 2000
> in the conflict resolution dialog I get the 'winner' columns listed with
> data and on the right 'loser' side I see this message instead of data:
> "The error described above occurred when trying to insert or update this
> data at the other server. If you ignore this conflict, you should resolve it
> through other means. Consider logging the details of this conflict, then
> sending the log entry to your system administrator"
> My issue is that the subscriber machine ran out of hard drive space so all
> the inserts (and some updates) were failing to get written to the
> subscriber. Suprisingly sql server says thats a 'conflict'. I would rather
> something like that 'fail' replication so its discovered sooner. Anyway:
> 1) I want to keep the update that occured at the publisher but I don't know
> if thats the 'winner' or 'loser' here? its not clear. The winner side shows
> data, and the loser side shows the message I pasted above. I have several of
> these and I am not personally familiar with the db data so I can't tell from
> looking at the data if its the 'updated' one or not. How do I know? (it sure
> would be nice if the interface actually told you which machine's data you
> were looking at along with 'winner' or 'loser')

Confusion about dialog security steps.

Hi There

I have done the following.

2 Servers across the net work Server A and Server B.

I have created private keys at each and copied to public keys across.

I create an endpoint at each with validation by the certificates. I then create appropriate users and logins at each and import the public certificates with authorization to the users who have send permission on the endpoints.

That is transport security sorted and it works.

Now from what i have learnt from examples, to setup dialog security i do the following.

create a private key in each DB :

create certificate Store001DialogPri

with subject = 'Store001DialogPri',

start_date = '07/20/2006'

active for begin_dialog = on;

go

I then copy the public key to each server, create a user only in each DB and import the public keys with authorization on the user. And grant send to the appropriate servcies to the user.

I then create appropriate remote service bindings with this user.

Now this works for me. Everythign seems A OK.

However i am going thorugh the Service Broker "bible", and there are a ton of steps i am not doing but my setup works ?

Steps i am not doing for example is when i create the private keys in the DB i should authorize them to a user i create who is then gratnted CONTROL permission on the SERVICES.

Now i do not do this but everything seems to be working. I thought i finally understood dialogs security but now i am totally confused ?

Is what i am doing correct ? If so why are these all these additinal steps mentioned ? WHat am i missing ?

Thanx

The AUTHORIZATION and CONTROL steps in the samples are needed if you are performing these steps for somebody else. You test probably ended up with all the services being owned by [dbo], (you are sysadmin on the test machine, aren't you?), and the certificates with private keys also being owned by [dbo], so it just worked. But in real life, you might have to do this setup steps for a service owned by a different database user, so in that case is important to associate the private key with the service owner.

HTH,
~ Remus

|||

Hi Remus

Yes everything should be owned by dbo, however i do not see any otehr users coming into the SB application, so therefore i shouldnot have to do these steps?

Thanx for the feedback