Named locks are server wide if I'm not mistaken. So if you have a named lock in app ABC and the same named lock in app XYZ, and if they were called concurrently, then XYZ user would have to wait on ABC user regardless if the locks had anything to do with each other. So if you do used named locks, you would want to do something like #applicationname#mylock.
-----Original Message----- From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 4:50 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: proper locking techniques : Access at the risk of exposing my ignorance... :) I thought named locks were better than, say, locking an entire scope. If I were to lock the session scope, doesn't that effectively single thread the scope for every user of the scope? I thought a named lock would only effectively single thread one particular user's process (?) On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:40:37 -0800, Matt Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You would use a named lock in the (hopefully *extremely* rare) > instance where you want only a single user to execute a block of code > at any one time. > > Hopefully your app design never causes such a need to arise. > > -- > --mattRobertson-- > Janitor, MSB Web Systems > mysecretbase.com > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:192473 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
