allowing outside party to access database

What would be the best way to allow a third party to have read only access to
part of our database. We both collect do not email information and they want
to be able to see what we have and load it into their system to supplement
what they have collected.
We're thinking about a readonly view of certain fields in one table. Would
using xml be more secure than setting up a linked server? Or is there a
better way?
Thanks,
Dan D.
Hi
More secure and easier. If they really need linked server access, put data
for them into a seperate DB that gets updated ever xxxminutes/hours. You
don't want them in your main DB.
Regards
Mike
"Dan D." wrote:

> What would be the best way to allow a third party to have read only access to
> part of our database. We both collect do not email information and they want
> to be able to see what we have and load it into their system to supplement
> what they have collected.
> We're thinking about a readonly view of certain fields in one table. Would
> using xml be more secure than setting up a linked server? Or is there a
> better way?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
|||I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the linked server is more
secure and easier? Or that something else is more secure and easier but if
they have to have a linked server to put it into a separate db?
Thanks,
Dan D.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> More secure and easier. If they really need linked server access, put data
> for them into a seperate DB that gets updated ever xxxminutes/hours. You
> don't want them in your main DB.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Dan D." wrote:
|||Hi
A Linked server is more secure. An XML file has to be put somewhere that can
be downloaded from. A linked server, against a different DB (or better,
server) makes it as easy as can get.
If you see that more 3rd parties need access, then XML is better, but some
sort of development effort needs to happen in this case.
Regards
Mike
"Dan D." wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the linked server is more
> secure and easier? Or that something else is more secure and easier but if
> they have to have a linked server to put it into a separate db?
> Thanks,
> Dan D.
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||Thanks.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> A Linked server is more secure. An XML file has to be put somewhere that can
> be downloaded from. A linked server, against a different DB (or better,
> server) makes it as easy as can get.
> If you see that more 3rd parties need access, then XML is better, but some
> sort of development effort needs to happen in this case.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Dan D." wrote:
|||Someone mentioned using net libraries as a solution. Do you know anything
about them?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> A Linked server is more secure. An XML file has to be put somewhere that can
> be downloaded from. A linked server, against a different DB (or better,
> server) makes it as easy as can get.
> If you see that more 3rd parties need access, then XML is better, but some
> sort of development effort needs to happen in this case.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Dan D." wrote: