Re: Optimistic Concurrency Question:
From: Matt C <canimal_at_my-deja.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:16 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns92AE5939B7A4Acanimalmydejacom_at_68.12.19.6>
> data the user can save or write down, followed by an automatic reset
> of the data to the state of the most-recently-saved record [sic]. <<
>
> Actually, you want to roll back the whole transaction, not just the
> row where failure occurred.
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:41:16 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns92AE5939B7A4Acanimalmydejacom_at_68.12.19.6>
71062.1056_at_compuserve.com (--CELKO--) wrote in news:c0d87ec0.0210201030.5d1581b5_at_posting.google.com:
>>> I am thinking of a "Conflict Detected" form containing conflicting
> data the user can save or write down, followed by an automatic reset
> of the data to the state of the most-recently-saved record [sic]. <<
>
> Actually, you want to roll back the whole transaction, not just the
> row where failure occurred.
Ok, agreed.
> I like the explicit resolution, but is
> that your business rule? Are some data sources more trusted than
> others? Do you inform both conflicting users? One conflicting user?
> A third party?
There is no business rule, no, no, the owner of the rolled-back transaction, no.
All of the above is way overkill for my environment, but I can see they might all be useful in different contexts.
Thanks for the response.
Matt Received on Mon Oct 21 2002 - 15:41:16 CEST