DROP VIEW vs DROP TABLE

I looked through this newsgroup for Error 3705, which states that I cannot
use DROP VIEW on a particular view because it "thinks" it's a table so i am
supposed to use DROP TABLE instead. The suggestions I found do not apply in
this matter, so here goes...
I have a snapshot replication publication where I have some tables, stored
procedures, and views. The publication includes all the tables required by
the sp's and views and there is no sharing of object names. So how come the
agent thinks my view is a table? All I need replicated is the schema of the
view and not the data. Is there a way to speicfy this or does it matter
seeing that the table that the view uses is already replicated?
Roger.
If you happen to publish an indexed view as an 'indexed view logbased"
article, replication will expect that the indexed view to be instantiated as
a table on the subscriber. Of course, there may be more to it in your case.
-Raymond
"Roger Denison" <RogerDenison@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8F24D000-5382-4FC5-B889-3B3AA662DB07@.microsoft.com...
>I looked through this newsgroup for Error 3705, which states that I cannot
> use DROP VIEW on a particular view because it "thinks" it's a table so i
> am
> supposed to use DROP TABLE instead. The suggestions I found do not apply
> in
> this matter, so here goes...
> I have a snapshot replication publication where I have some tables, stored
> procedures, and views. The publication includes all the tables required
> by
> the sp's and views and there is no sharing of object names. So how come
> the
> agent thinks my view is a table? All I need replicated is the schema of
> the
> view and not the data. Is there a way to speicfy this or does it matter
> seeing that the table that the view uses is already replicated?
> --
> Roger.