Hi Frank,

I am not sure, if I understood your setup correctly. But in my eyes, you don't need the local elog servers. The only difference for the users at the chambers would be to directly use the 'mirror' remote elog url instead of the local elog url in their browsers. "which is regularly updated..." could mean, that you are using some kind of automatism to add entries to the local elogs, but you could also use these directly on the remote 

If you have concers about users editing the wrong chamber elog, there is a usermanagement to only allow certain users to certain elogs (on the remote).

As for the part "having a record conflict". That would be totally fine and handled by the mirror function.
See the part "If new entries exist locally and remotely having the same entry ID"... in the documentation of the function.

As you state, that you are working on windows. There is no "killall" command to send the signal, as far as i know.
Then a script could kill the elog and start it again. But this should have the disadvantage of loosing the login session of the users.

Best wishes,
Sebastian

 I'm looking for config examples of a shift log book where operators have to check a box or select their name from a list to prove they have read the latest entries in the log, can anyone help.

  Thanks for your time.

Ed..

Unfortunately a read confirmation is not foreseen in the Elog system. You would have to define one attribute for each shift worker, like "John has read", "Steve has read" and so on. Then each of the shift workes has to "Edit" each message an check his/her checkmark manually.

Stefan

As a variant of what Stefan has suggested:

Perhaps a simple comment is set up as the pre-loaded reply - perhaps including date and time.  Maybe include the author's name in the comment, but all that is available anyway (see documentation for that).  This bit isn't vital.

Then each user simply has to *reply* to the message concerned, and you then get the list of who has read it, available in threaded view of the comment and replies.

Of course this works best with small numbers of users, and where threads are never very long.  Also, it means that you can lock the original message (prevent it being edited) which may be a particular concern depending on what you are using elog for.

You might also want to define an attribute that a reader can tick to say that they have taken action if it is important that someone has to take further action (as opposed to just reading) - and maybe that changes the colour of the background or the icon in front of the topic.  Then there would be a record as to who has done the necessary, and later readers will know the matter is for information rather than needing attention.   For example,. who kicked the power supply to the ion source on Monday morning to "wake it up" (this is true, but pre-elog, so was a paper record).  John kicked it last Monday, and the power supply respects John, may be a statistic one could find from such information recorded as suggested here.

You may want a second attribute people have to explicity select so as to show they understand what they've read, rather than just reply/submit without having read... e.g. they have to select a digit of the ticket number, or some auto-generated number (or letter, I'm not characterist) that is within the original comment.

We all know people who click on things they've never read, and come on, we've all done it at times...

David.