> > > > I usually prefer the following trick for preventing long locking
> > > > times. On every
> > > > table I define a timestamp field which is updated every time the record is
> > > > written to the database. If a user edits a record (without
> > > > locking) and commit his changes
> > > > the timestamp is returned from the client program unchanged. The program
> > > > reads the record again for update and compares the timestamp from
> > > > the database
> > > > and the timestamp from the user program. If the timestamp has changed
> > > > in the meantime the record was updated from someone else and the
> > > > transaction will be rejected.
> >
> > and all the work done by the user (filling long form) gone out
>
> Yes, but how often this really occurs? You may handle this case in your
> application i.e. by showing the differences between the record in the
> database and the changes submitted by the user. I made very good
> experience in the past 10 years with this system even in big applications
> where a large number of users were using the database
> concurrently.
>
> If you reread the record for updating nobody else should be able to
> update the record. The record is locked. The method I suggested is
> a way to keep the locking times as short as possible.
>
> >
> >
> > It's ok. I do the same.
> > 1. Update lock field for marked to transaction (everyone else need to know It
> > is locked)
>
> And what happens if a user is closing his browser i.e. in a web application?
> What are you doing with the record marked as locked?
>
I timed out locks in database and get phones from users
but it is little problem becouse my application is in java and browser
invokes finalyze method with unlock procedure.
I have only problems with browser crasches.
In my case locking problem is greater than in web apps (I thing)
because users frequently try to modify the same record
and I thing they will be not happy trying to fill form for the second, ....
once taking them about 2 minutes.
Pawel
