MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » January 2014

RE: best practice for web client updates to multiple tables



fixed

Maybe "blocked" depends on one or two assumptions ?

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matt Olson
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 12:48 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: best practice for web client updates to multiple tables

Rob, Mohammed is blocked from doing his update until Abdul is done with his transaction.

-----Original Message-----
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: best practice for web client updates to multiple tables

As I read this I am interpreting this as the C# developer asking US why we think developing with commitment control is such a pain?
It really isn't. There are some stuff you have to take care of though.
- You must journal your data.
- You must properly maintain your journals.
- You have to code the COMMIT and ROLLBACK into your code.
- You have to decide whether or not to modify existing code to use commitment control.
- You have to fully understand the implications.

Implications include:
- Abdul updates the item balance on item X to 500 units from 417 units.
- Mohammed updates the item balance on item X to 495 units. (Sold some
perhaps.)
- Abdul issues a ROLLBACK.
What is the balance on item X?




Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





From: J Franz <franz400@xxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/31/2013 03:19 PM
Subject: Re: best practice for web client updates to multiple
tables
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx



Charles,

Your point is well made.


Jim


________________________________
From: Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: best practice for web client updates to multiple tables


you need a better C# developer...

Actually, I'm shocked that they wouldn't have originally written the app
using transactions in the first place. Which would have meant coming to
you with a "why are we getting SQL7008 - Table not valid" since the tables
aren't journaled.

While I can't say I've used transaction in C#, I have used them in Java.
It's not that big a deal.

Start journaling on your tables, then tell the C# guys that their app
needs
to use transactions.

Charles


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, J Franz <franz400@xxxxxxx> wrote:

<quote>Why do you think commitment control is a larger effort to
implement?</quote>

That was a comment from the C# developer.

Jim



________________________________
From: Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: best practice for web client updates to multiple tables


Commitment control is the "right" answer.

I don't see stored procedures solving this without commitment control.

Why do you think commitment control is a larger effort to implement?

Charles


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM, J Franz <franz400@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Having an interesting discussion with our C# developers over best
method
to insert/update new orders to our system. No current journaling on
the
11
tables updated for a new order.
We have had instances of "partial updates" in our testing.
The failed updates could be time-outs, user cancelling session (after
long
delay), or logic halt in client (they are working on identifying
those).
These are customer entered orders, not employee entered, and network
issues can be a factor.
There are couple tables that hold the "working order" until submit.
I have suggested update through stored procedure, so all the final
updates
are code running on the i.
Committment control has been mentioned as well, but seen as a much
larger
effort to implement.
This would be many hundreds of orders per day.
Jim Franz
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.







Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact