Alternative to horizontal partitioning?

Hi,
In my replication environment I am using merge replication to get access to
our vendors to our orders.
They should not be able to see the price information of the orders. So, I
want to do something like horizontal partitioning.
I realize I could just leave the columns out of the article; but doing that
would be hard for two reasons:
1. I want to keep using the same publication for vendors as for our own
locations. If we leave out some columns we would need to create the exact
same publication with the columns for our own locations that use
replication.
2. Our program would be impacted. Our views depend on the fields. Our UDFs
depend on the fields, etc.
So, my ideal solution would be telling replication to include the column for
'schema' porpouses, but to not synchronize any data contained in it (so
effectively leaving the field NULL in the vendors databases).
While keeping the same database structure (and making life easier) we would
not be giving our vendors sensitive information.
I think there is no way to accomplish that in MSSQL2000 Merge replication.
Any ideas? workaround? (I am starting to consider messing with the
replication triggers myself - but that doesn't seem like a really good idea,
unless I modify the templates SQL uses to generate them).
Thanks for the comments, Jos Araujo.
Can you try to modify the stored procedures that is used to insert or update
the record in your vendors database?
Just a thought.
Perayu
"Jos Araujo" <josea@.mcrinc.com> wrote in message
news:OtWgqqU6FHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> In my replication environment I am using merge replication to get access
> to
> our vendors to our orders.
> They should not be able to see the price information of the orders. So, I
> want to do something like horizontal partitioning.
> I realize I could just leave the columns out of the article; but doing
> that
> would be hard for two reasons:
> 1. I want to keep using the same publication for vendors as for our own
> locations. If we leave out some columns we would need to create the exact
> same publication with the columns for our own locations that use
> replication.
> 2. Our program would be impacted. Our views depend on the fields. Our UDFs
> depend on the fields, etc.
> So, my ideal solution would be telling replication to include the column
> for
> 'schema' porpouses, but to not synchronize any data contained in it (so
> effectively leaving the field NULL in the vendors databases).
> While keeping the same database structure (and making life easier) we
> would
> not be giving our vendors sensitive information.
> I think there is no way to accomplish that in MSSQL2000 Merge replication.
> Any ideas? workaround? (I am starting to consider messing with the
> replication triggers myself - but that doesn't seem like a really good
> idea,
> unless I modify the templates SQL uses to generate them).
> Thanks for the comments, Jos Araujo.
>