Re: 5250 and un-do

[Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure how to respond, or even if respond.  But that has yet to 
stop me.  :)

if my process changes FieldB and during that process another process has 
changed FieldA then using a record-updated counter has no relevance.  My 
update to FieldB is still appropriate.

I agree that these collisions are rare, but they happen and if not 
handled, they are ugly.  Really ugly.


On 12/18/2017 12:45 PM, Henrik Rützou wrote:
> Booth
>
> there is no need for a lot of programming her, the simple solution is to
> place a "Record Update Counter" on each record.
>
> If tw users reads the record for update the will get the same number, if
> the second user updates the record first his
> update is allowed and the update counter is increased by on, if the first
> user then tries to update the record he is told
> that others has updated the record and he has the start over again.
>
> In practise in most cases these collision are rare and not worth to put a
> lot of programming into - why should two
> user update the same customer at the same time - and what is the chance for
> that to happen?