|
<Jeff>
One of the major issues using commitment control is the release of record
locks (ALL) when issuing a COMMIT operation.
Take a legacy job where a pgm gets the company master at the start of
processing, processes all details, *then* updates the company master with
the totals. (not a good design, but I *have* seen this). Now, that pgm
calls other pgms, one of which issues a COMMIT at the end of the processing
for a control group. (the pgmr did not know about the first pgm). ALL
record locks released, then pgm 1 fails on update!
Perhaps using different AG's *might* fix this, but ideally, the entire
application would be in the same AG.
</Jeff>
... in this scenario without commitment controll the record lock would be
released earlier, with the update and a second triy to update would fail
anyway. Go back and think about your design. I'm rather unsure, wether your
applications are rock solid!
Why don't you young guys not want to understand, that programmers life
would be much easier using commitment controll???
D*B
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.