× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



> 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 thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.