|
> I'm struggling upstream against the > traditional record level access > idea of locking the record until > the update is done. Well, as an old timer I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing traditional about locking the record while it's displayed on the screen. All of my employers considered this practice very primitive. To be fair, it solves a lot of programming problems, but is makes it incredibly difficult to work on sophisticated modern projects. Programming shouldn't be about making the programmer's life easier - it should be about making the user's life easier. Solving a business problem. I think I can speak for many traditionalists when I say that there are two classic solutions to the record locking dillema. One is to have a flag within the record that the application checks to see if the record is in use. The other is to compare the record contents to a saved copy prior to the update. That is: chain (no lock) save copy of record exfmt chain (lock) compare saved+changes to DB copy different: tell user same: update DB Hope this helps --buck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.