Re: 5250 and un-do

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?