Re: ACID et al
From: x <x_at_not-exists.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:09:59 +0200
Message-ID: <dn3v2r$cnq$1_at_domitilla.aioe.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:09:59 +0200
Message-ID: <dn3v2r$cnq$1_at_domitilla.aioe.org>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:zz_kf.47341$ki.41902_at_pd7tw2no...
> > This looks like an optimistic lock, with the responsibility of enforcing
> > it pushed to the application.
> I'd prefer to say 'pushed to the client'. An app with little need for
> high concurrency could choose to let the messaging layer in the client
> take care of remembering the previous message, even though that might
> involve redundant work in the 'server' (only one message would need to
> be 'remembered', so that kind of infrastructure ought to be fairly
simple).
That "messaging layer" could be a little RDBMS. Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 13:09:59 CET