The SOAP Challenge - SalesForce.com says that CFMX can't do it! Ok guys here is the deal. I am trying to integrate a ColdFusion backend with the SalesForce.com 2.5 API. They do not support CF because they say that it can not consume advanced SOAP web services correctly.
You can read more about the SF API at http://www.sforce.com. I think that it is possible to do it with CFMX 6.1 as long as the reccomended hotfix is installed. (http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/webservices_heade r.htm) The deal is I can not get it to work. The problem is that it seems our ability to set soap headers is limited. The proper SOAP request format is: <!-- START SOAP REQUEST --> Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8 Accept: application/soap+xml, application/dime, multipart/related, text/* User-Agent: Axis/1.1 Host: aspen.salesforce.com Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache SOAPAction: "" Content-Length: 717 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/ XMLSchema-instance"> <soapenv:Header> <ns1:SessionHeader soapenv:mustUnderstand="0" xmlns:ns1="SoapService"> <ns2:sessionId xmlns:ns2="urn:enterprise.soap.sforce.com">_ZnWl8zuUbtuhBXlNKOSU</ns2:sessio nId> </ns1:SessionHeader> </soapenv:Header> <soapenv:Body> <getUserInfo xmlns="urn:enterprise.soap.sforce.com"> <getUserInfo xsi:type="xsd:string">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</getUserInfo> </getUserInfo> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> <!-- END SOAP REQUEST --> I can login and get a valid login buy using this code: <!--- Create web service and login: ---> <cfscript> sfapi = CreateObject("webservice", "#WSDLURL#"); loginResult = sfapi.login("#userName#", "#password#"); </cfscript> But when I try to access a method in the web service by: <cfscript> ws = CreateObject("webservice", '#WSDLURL2#'); addRequestHeader(ws, "sessionID", '#loginResult.sessionID#', "urn:enterprise.soap.sforce.com"); getUserInfoResponse = ws.getUserInfo("[EMAIL PROTECTED]"); </cfscript> I continually get errors that header values are not being set. The error is: Could not perform web service invocation "getUserInfo" because AxisFault faultCode: {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/}Server faultSubcode: faultString: INVALID_SESSION_ID: Invalid Session ID found in SessionHeader faultActor: faultNode: faultDetail: {urn:fault.enterprise.soap.sforce.com}fault: <sf:exceptionCode>INVALID_SESSION_ID</sf:exceptionCode> <sf:exceptionMessage>Invalid Session ID found in SessionHeader</sf:exceptionMessage> So the question is this: <b>IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONSUME SOAP WEB SERVICES ????</b> Salesforce has done it with PHP, C# , Java, VB.Net., and even Pearl. I am sure that it is a stupid error on my part but I sure don't see it. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:20 AM Subject: [PERIODIC cfcdev DIGEST POSTING] From: Justin Balog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:01:32 -0700 Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----=_NextPart_ST_09_15_01_Tuesday_February_24_2004_29958 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I like the idea of user negotiated locking =) Does your application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of the locking in the lock manager? Thanks, Justin -----Original Message----- From: Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Conditions? We come accross this quite a bit. The system we use is to create an application structure that is keyed off the id of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a lock, his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a message similar to this: "This object was locked for editng by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe tries to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not saved because your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We make our users talk to each other to negotiate locks, and offer the force option for when computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>> Howdy, I am working on an intranet type solution, and am running into data integrity and record locking concerns. The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one person from writing over the same record in an update that is being performed on the same record as another person. 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. 3) User #1 saves record to dB. 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared record sets, so any thoughts on how others have solved this problem? Here is my thought on the matter. 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with that records instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. (This is locked to avoid race conditions) 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already exists in it, which it does, so it does not load a new one, but does increment the count of the number of people who have that record open. 3) User #1 saves record to dB. After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock manager is updated with the saved data, and the count of individuals with the record open is deincremented. 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object to be saved is compared to the instance data of the object in the lock manager. If the data is different, a message is returned asking whether or not they would like to overwrite the new data. --If yes, then the record is saved, and the obj open count in the lock manager is deincremented. --If the open count is 0, then the object is deleted from the lock manager --Else, the object in the lock manager is updated with the newly saved instance data. I think there are a couple problems with this: 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load in all these obj in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the server ---need some way to control the amount of objects in the lock manager. 2) User leaves open record with out committing to the save so the open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented. 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to RACE conditions....so point them out!!!! Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you say 'PULL' and shoot it down =) I am just starting to figure this out? Thanks again, Justin ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----=_NextPart_ST_09_15_01_Tuesday_February_24_2004_29958 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px"> <DIV><SPAN class=526571016-24022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I like the idea of user negotiated locking =) Does your application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of the locking in the lock manager?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=526571016-24022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=526571016-24022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=526571016-24022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=526571016-24022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Justin</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 23, 2004 10:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Conditions?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>We come accross this quite a bit. The system we use is to create an application structure that is keyed off the id of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a lock, his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a message similar to this: "This object was locked for editng by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe tries to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not saved because your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We make our users talk to each other to negotiate locks, and offer the force option for when computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. <BR><BR>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>><BR><BR>Howdy,<BR><BR>I am working on an intranet type solution, and am running into data<BR>integrity and record locking concerns. <BR><BR>The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one person from writing<BR>over the same record in an update that is being performed on the same record<BR>as another person. <BR><BR>1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it.<BR>2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it.<BR>3) User #1 saves record to dB.<BR>4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes.<BR><BR>I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared record sets, so any<BR>thoughts on how others have solved this problem? <BR><BR>Here is my thought on the matter.<BR><BR>1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it.<BR> When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with that records<BR>instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. (This is locked to<BR>avoid race conditions)<BR>2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it.<BR> Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already exists in it, which<BR>it does, so it does not load a new one, but does increment the count of the<BR>number of people who have that record open.<BR>3) User #1 saves record to dB.<BR> After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock manager is<BR>updated with the saved data, and the count of individuals with the record<BR>open is deincremented.<BR>4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes.<BR> --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object to be saved is<BR>compared to the instance data of the object in the lock manager. If the<BR>data is different, a message is returned asking whether or not they<BR>would like to overwrite the new data. <BR> --If yes, then the record is saved, and the obj open count<BR>in the lock manager is deincremented.<BR> --If the open count is 0, then the object is deleted<BR>from the lock manager<BR> --Else, the object in the lock manager is updated<BR>with the newly saved instance data.<BR><BR>I think there are a couple problems with this:<BR> 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load in all these obj<BR>in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the server ---need some way<BR>to control the amount of objects in the lock manager.<BR> 2) User leaves open record with out committing to the save so the<BR>open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented.<BR> 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to RACE<BR>conditions....so point them out!!!!<BR><BR>Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you say 'PULL' and shoot it<BR>down =) I am just starting to figure this out?<BR><BR>Thanks again,<BR><BR>Justin<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------------ ----------------------<BR>You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email<BR>to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'<BR>in the message of the email.<BR><BR>CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported<BR>by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).<BR><BR>An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ----=_NextPart_ST_09_15_01_Tuesday_February_24_2004_29958-- From: "Roland Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:53:07 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3FACC.C4A50F90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IMO, you're asking for trouble if you have to get users talking to resolve locking conflicts. Irregardless of the programmatic bottleneck, you're now introducing a "physical world" bottleneck. And how do you think Mary feels after finally clicking "submit", only to be told "Sorry - you've been hijacked"? You're essentially saying that whoever clicks "submit" first has the most important data! _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Balog Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? I like the idea of user negotiated locking =) Does your application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of the locking in the lock manager? Thanks, Justin -----Original Message----- From: Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Conditions? We come accross this quite a bit. The system we use is to create an application structure that is keyed off the id of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a lock, his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a message similar to this: "This object was locked for editng by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe tries to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not saved because your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We make our users talk to each other to negotiate locks, and offer the force option for when computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>> Howdy, I am working on an intranet type solution, and am running into data integrity and record locking concerns. The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one person from writing over the same record in an update that is being performed on the same record as another person. 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. 3) User #1 saves record to dB. 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared record sets, so any thoughts on how others have solved this problem? Here is my thought on the matter. 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with that records instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. (This is locked to avoid race conditions) 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already exists in it, which it does, so it does not load a new one, but does increment the count of the number of people who have that record open. 3) User #1 saves record to dB. After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock manager is updated with the saved data, and the count of individuals with the record open is deincremented. 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object to be saved is compared to the instance data of the object in the lock manager. If the data is different, a message is returned asking whether or not they would like to overwrite the new data. --If yes, then the record is saved, and the obj open count in the lock manager is deincremented. --If the open count is 0, then the object is deleted from the lock manager --Else, the object in the lock manager is updated with the newly saved instance data. I think there are a couple problems with this: 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load in all these obj in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the server ---need some way to control the amount of objects in the lock manager. 2) User leaves open record with out committing to the save so the open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented. 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to RACE conditions....so point them out!!!! Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you say 'PULL' and shoot it down =) I am just starting to figure this out? Thanks again, Justin ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3FACC.C4A50F90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin-right:0in; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-believe-normal-left:yes;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 {font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <![if mso 9]> <style> p.MsoNormal {margin-left:3.0pt;} </style> <![endif]> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple = style=3D'margin-left:3.0pt;margin-top: 3.0pt;margin-right:3.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt'> <div class=3DSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>IMO, you’re asking for = trouble if you have to get users talking to resolve locking conflicts. = Irregardless of the programmatic bottleneck, you’re now introducing a = “physical world” bottleneck. And how do you think Mary feels after = finally clicking “submit”, only to be told “Sorry - you’ve been = hijacked”? You’re essentially saying that whoever clicks “submit” = first has the most important data!</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1> </span></font></div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><b><font = size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</spa= n></font></b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Justin Balog<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, February = 24, 2004 11:02 AM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [CFCDev] = [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions?</span></font></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> </span></font></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font = size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial; color:blue'>I like the idea of user negotiated locking =3D) Does = your application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of the locking = in the lock manager?</span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font = size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial; color:blue'>Thanks,</span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font = size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial; color:blue'>Justin</span></font></p> </div> <blockquote style=3D'margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> <p class=3DMsoNormal = style=3D'margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left: 0in'><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, February = 23, 2004 10:39 AM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> = [EMAIL PROTECTED]<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [CFCDev] = [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Conditions?</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>We come = accross this quite a bit. The system we use is to create an application structure = that is keyed off the id of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a = lock, his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a message similar to = this: "This object was locked for editng by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at = 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe = tries to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not saved because = your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We = make our users talk to each other to negotiate locks, and offer the force option = for when computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. <br> <br> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>><br> <br> Howdy,<br> <br> I am working on an intranet type solution, and am running into data<br> integrity and record locking concerns. <br> <br> The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one person from = writing<br> over the same record in an update that is being performed on the same = record<br> as another person. <br> <br> 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it.<br> 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it.<br> 3) User #1 saves record to dB.<br> 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes.<br> <br> I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared record sets, so = any<br> thoughts on how others have solved this problem? <br> <br> Here is my thought on the matter.<br> <br> 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it.<br> When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with = that records<br> instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. (This is = locked to<br> avoid race conditions)<br> 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it.<br> Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already exists = in it, which<br> it does, so it does not load a new one, but does increment the count of = the<br> number of people who have that record open.<br> 3) User #1 saves record to dB.<br> After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock = manager is<br> updated with the saved data, and the count of individuals with the = record<br> open is deincremented.<br> 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes.<br> --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object to = be saved is<br> compared to the instance data of the object in the lock manager. = If the<br> data is different, a message is returned asking = whether or not they<br> would like to overwrite the new data. <br> --If yes, then the record is saved, = and the obj open count<br> in the lock manager is deincremented.<br> --If the open = count is 0, then the object is deleted<br> from the lock manager<br> --Else, the object = in the lock manager is updated<br> with the newly saved instance data.<br> <br> I think there are a couple problems with this:<br> 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load = in all these obj<br> in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the server ---need some = way<br> to control the amount of objects in the lock = manager.<br> 2) User leaves open record with out committing to the = save so the<br> open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented.<br> 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to = RACE<br> conditions....so point them out!!!!<br> <br> Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you say 'PULL' and = shoot it<br> down =3D) I am just starting to figure this out?<br> <br> Thanks again,<br> <br> Justin<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> ----------------------------------------------------------<br> You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email<br> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'<br> in the message of the email.<br> <br> CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported<br> by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).<br> <br> An archive of the CFCDev list is available at = www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]</span></font></p> </blockquote> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C3FACC.C4A50F90-- Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:56:39 +0100 From: "Hugo Ahlenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For such a scenario, I think it would be much better to have the lock at the "checkout" time. I'd hate to write up something, and then be told that I can't submit it... (even if I talk to someone about it, we would have the problem of merging our changes) ------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Ahlenius E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project Officer Phone: +46 8 230460 UNEP GRID-Arendal Fax: +46 8 230441 Stockholm Office Mobile: +46 733 467111 WWW: http://www.grida.no ------------------------------------------------------------- | -----Original Message----- | From: Roland Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 17:53 | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Condi tions? | | IMO, you're asking for trouble if you have to get users | talking to resolve locking conflicts. Irregardless of the | programmatic bottleneck, you're now introducing a "physical | world" bottleneck. And how do you think Mary feels after | finally clicking "submit", only to be told "Sorry - you've | been hijacked"? You're essentially saying that whoever | clicks "submit" first has the most important data! | | | | ________________________________ | | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Balog | Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM | To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Condi tions? | | | | I like the idea of user negotiated locking =) Does your | application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of | the locking in the lock manager? | | | | Thanks, | | | | Justin | | -----Original Message----- | From: Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:39 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Conditions? | | We come accross this quite a bit. The system we use is | to create an application structure that is keyed off the id | of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a lock, | his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. | If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a | message similar to this: "This object was locked for editng | by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit | this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." | Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe tries | to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not | saved because your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on | 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We make our users talk to each other to | negotiate locks, and offer the force option for when | computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. | | >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>> | | Howdy, | | I am working on an intranet type solution, and am | running into data | integrity and record locking concerns. | | The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one | person from writing | over the same record in an update that is being | performed on the same record | as another person. | | 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. | 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. | 3) User #1 saves record to dB. | 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. | | I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared | record sets, so any | thoughts on how others have solved this problem? | | Here is my thought on the matter. | | 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. | When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with | that records | instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. | (This is locked to | avoid race conditions) | 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. | Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already | exists in it, which | it does, so it does not load a new one, but does | increment the count of the | number of people who have that record open. | 3) User #1 saves record to dB. | After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock | manager is | updated with the saved data, and the count of | individuals with the record | open is deincremented. | 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. | --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object | to be saved is | compared to the instance data of the object in the lock | manager. If the | data is different, a message is returned asking | whether or not they | would like to overwrite the new data. | --If yes, then the record is saved, and the obj open count | in the lock manager is deincremented. | --If the open count is 0, then the object is deleted | from the lock manager | --Else, the object in the lock manager is updated | with the newly saved instance data. | | I think there are a couple problems with this: | 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load in | all these obj | in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the | server ---need some way | to control the amount of objects in the lock manager. | 2) User leaves open record with out committing to | the save so the | open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented. | 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to RACE | conditions....so point them out!!!! | | Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you | say 'PULL' and shoot it | down =) I am just starting to figure this out? | | Thanks again, | | Justin | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email | to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' | in the message of the email. | | CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported | by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). | | An archive of the CFCDev list is available at | www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/ Subject: [CFCDev] OT: invoking C# webservice Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:10:52 -0600 From: "Schreck, Thomas (PPC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FB1A.AF326BF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has anyone invoked a C# webservice using CFMX? =20 Thanks - =20 Tom Schreck 817-252-4900 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 I have not failed. I've found 10,000 ways that won't work. =20 - Thomas Edison =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FB1A.AF326BF5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-compose; font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Has anyone invoked a C# webservice using = CFMX?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Thanks = -<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></fo= nt></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Tom = Schreck<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>817-252-4900<o:p></o:p></spa= n></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>[EMAIL PROTECTED]<o:p><= /o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></fo= nt></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>I have not failed. = I've found 10,000 ways that won't work.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-autospace:none'><font size=3D2 = face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></fo= nt></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>- Thomas Edison</span></font><font face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FB1A.AF326BF5-- From: "Nando" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:42:13 +0100 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about versioning? In our system, a version of every save is stored. So for us, in the scenario described below, Joe and Mary would each have a version stored that can be reverted to and made live if necessary. The system also simply stores versions (as work in progress) if the user chooses, or if the users permission level does not allow them to save a version live to the site. I just thought that our system could be adapted to use a "lock" as described below. So if a particular chuck of content is opened for editing by a user Joe, and Mary comes along and opens it, the system would only save a version of Mary's edit and display a message to her that Joe is currently working on that same record. Of course, there is nothing to prevent Mary from opening the record just after Joe makes his save, edit it, and discard his changes in this fashion. The "lock" concept misses that scenario. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hugo Ahlenius Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? For such a scenario, I think it would be much better to have the lock at the "checkout" time. I'd hate to write up something, and then be told that I can't submit it... (even if I talk to someone about it, we would have the problem of merging our changes) ------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Ahlenius E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project Officer Phone: +46 8 230460 UNEP GRID-Arendal Fax: +46 8 230441 Stockholm Office Mobile: +46 733 467111 WWW: http://www.grida.no ------------------------------------------------------------- | -----Original Message----- | From: Roland Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 17:53 | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Condi tions? | | IMO, you're asking for trouble if you have to get users | talking to resolve locking conflicts. Irregardless of the | programmatic bottleneck, you're now introducing a "physical | world" bottleneck. And how do you think Mary feels after | finally clicking "submit", only to be told "Sorry - you've | been hijacked"? You're essentially saying that whoever | clicks "submit" first has the most important data! | | | | ________________________________ | | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Balog | Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM | To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Condi tions? | | | | I like the idea of user negotiated locking =) Does your | application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of | the locking in the lock manager? | | | | Thanks, | | | | Justin | | -----Original Message----- | From: Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:39 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Conditions? | | We come accross this quite a bit. The system we use is | to create an application structure that is keyed off the id | of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a lock, | his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. | If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a | message similar to this: "This object was locked for editng | by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit | this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." | Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe tries | to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not | saved because your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on | 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We make our users talk to each other to | negotiate locks, and offer the force option for when | computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. | | >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>> | | Howdy, | | I am working on an intranet type solution, and am | running into data | integrity and record locking concerns. | | The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one | person from writing | over the same record in an update that is being | performed on the same record | as another person. | | 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. | 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. | 3) User #1 saves record to dB. | 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. | | I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared | record sets, so any | thoughts on how others have solved this problem? | | Here is my thought on the matter. | | 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. | When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with | that records | instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. | (This is locked to | avoid race conditions) | 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. | Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already | exists in it, which | it does, so it does not load a new one, but does | increment the count of the | number of people who have that record open. | 3) User #1 saves record to dB. | After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock | manager is | updated with the saved data, and the count of | individuals with the record | open is deincremented. | 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. | --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object | to be saved is | compared to the instance data of the object in the lock | manager. If the | data is different, a message is returned asking | whether or not they | would like to overwrite the new data. | --If yes, then the record is saved, and the obj open count | in the lock manager is deincremented. | --If the open count is 0, then the object is deleted | from the lock manager | --Else, the object in the lock manager is updated | with the newly saved instance data. | | I think there are a couple problems with this: | 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load in | all these obj | in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the | server ---need some way | to control the amount of objects in the lock manager. | 2) User leaves open record with out committing to | the save so the | open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented. | 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to RACE | conditions....so point them out!!!! | | Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you | say 'PULL' and shoot it | down =) I am just starting to figure this out? | | Thanks again, | | Justin | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email | to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' | in the message of the email. | | CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported | by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). | | An archive of the CFCDev list is available at | www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Roland Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:51:19 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's why I'm against this level of programmatic locking - it gets too complicated too fast, and it is difficult to account for all possible scenarios. What if 3 or 4 users get involved in the edit? Then the whole shebang falls apart. Often times simple is better, and I think that the timestamp will do you well in this scenario. In fact, if you're using SQL Server or other SQL-92 compliant DB server, you can even use the "timestamp" data type, which is intended exactly for this purpose. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nando Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? What about versioning? In our system, a version of every save is stored. So for us, in the scenario described below, Joe and Mary would each have a version stored that can be reverted to and made live if necessary. The system also simply stores versions (as work in progress) if the user chooses, or if the users permission level does not allow them to save a version live to the site. I just thought that our system could be adapted to use a "lock" as described below. So if a particular chuck of content is opened for editing by a user Joe, and Mary comes along and opens it, the system would only save a version of Mary's edit and display a message to her that Joe is currently working on that same record. Of course, there is nothing to prevent Mary from opening the record just after Joe makes his save, edit it, and discard his changes in this fashion. The "lock" concept misses that scenario. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hugo Ahlenius Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and Avoiding Race Condi tions? For such a scenario, I think it would be much better to have the lock at the "checkout" time. I'd hate to write up something, and then be told that I can't submit it... (even if I talk to someone about it, we would have the problem of merging our changes) ------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Ahlenius E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project Officer Phone: +46 8 230460 UNEP GRID-Arendal Fax: +46 8 230441 Stockholm Office Mobile: +46 733 467111 WWW: http://www.grida.no ------------------------------------------------------------- | -----Original Message----- | From: Roland Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 17:53 | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Condi tions? | | IMO, you're asking for trouble if you have to get users | talking to resolve locking conflicts. Irregardless of the | programmatic bottleneck, you're now introducing a "physical | world" bottleneck. And how do you think Mary feels after | finally clicking "submit", only to be told "Sorry - you've | been hijacked"? You're essentially saying that whoever | clicks "submit" first has the most important data! | | | | ________________________________ | | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Balog | Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM | To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | Subject: RE: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Condi tions? | | | | I like the idea of user negotiated locking =) Does your | application suffer any performance hits due to the nature of | the locking in the lock manager? | | | | Thanks, | | | | Justin | | -----Original Message----- | From: Mark Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:39 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: [CFCDev] [Kind of OT]: Record Locking and | Avoiding Race Conditions? | | We come accross this quite a bit. The system we use is | to create an application structure that is keyed off the id | of the object being edited. When a user (Joe) obtains a lock, | his or her userid and a timestamp is added to the structure. | If another user(Mary) attempts to get a lock they are given a | message similar to this: "This object was locked for editng | by Joe Schmoe on 02/20/2004 at 10:00. Click UNLOCK to edit | this record. THIS MAY DISCARD CHANGES MADE BY JOE SCHMOE." | Clicking unlock replaces Joe's lock with Mary's. If Joe tries | to save, he will see the message: "Your changes were not | saved because your edit lock was removed by Mary Tidings on | 02/20/2004 at 10:01" We make our users talk to each other to | negotiate locks, and offer the force option for when | computers crash or people open a record and go to lunch. | | >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20 1:45 pm >>> | | Howdy, | | I am working on an intranet type solution, and am | running into data | integrity and record locking concerns. | | The classic problem I want to solve is preventing one | person from writing | over the same record in an update that is being | performed on the same record | as another person. | | 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. | 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. | 3) User #1 saves record to dB. | 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. | | I know everyone runs into this when dealing with shared | record sets, so any | thoughts on how others have solved this problem? | | Here is my thought on the matter. | | 1) User #1 loads record detail and begins to edit it. | When record is loaded, an obj is instantiated with | that records | instance data and added into a statefull lock manager. | (This is locked to | avoid race conditions) | 2) User #2 loads same record detail and begins to edit it. | Lock manager checks to see if that obj. already | exists in it, which | it does, so it does not load a new one, but does | increment the count of the | number of people who have that record open. | 3) User #1 saves record to dB. | After save, the instance data of the obj in the lock | manager is | updated with the saved data, and the count of | individuals with the record | open is deincremented. | 4) User #2 saves record to dB and overwrites #1's changes. | --Attempt to save, the instance data of the object | to be saved is | compared to the instance data of the object in the lock | manager. If the | data is different, a message is returned asking | whether or not they | would like to overwrite the new data. | --If yes, then the record is saved, and the obj open count | in the lock manager is deincremented. | --If the open count is 0, then the object is deleted | from the lock manager | --Else, the object in the lock manager is updated | with the newly saved instance data. | | I think there are a couple problems with this: | 1) Memory consumption. I think my having to load in | all these obj | in the lock manager, you could potentially crash the | server ---need some way | to control the amount of objects in the lock manager. | 2) User leaves open record with out committing to | the save so the | open obj count in the lock manager would never be deincremented. | 3) I know there are going to be problems relating to RACE | conditions....so point them out!!!! | | Any thoughts, feel free to throw this idea up as you | say 'PULL' and shoot it | down =) I am just starting to figure this out? | | Thanks again, | | Justin | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email | to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' | in the message of the email. | | CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported | by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). | | An archive of the CFCDev list is available at | www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [CFCDev] OT: invoking C# webservice Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:26:50 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Has anyone invoked a C# webservice using CFMX? Yes. You may have problems when working with .NET datasets, or with other complex types. You may also have problems with complex WSDL like that used by the MapPoint service. If you post what you're trying to do, someone may have an answer. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [CFCDev] OT: invoking C# webservice Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:56:23 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the code below does :) and works quite nicely :) tony <!--- invoke first webservice method, validateUser ---> <cfinvoke webservice="https://www.navtrak.net/StreetSuiteAPI/SSClientAPI/StreetSui te.asmx?wsdl" method="ValidateUser" user="{username}" pass="{password}" returnvariable="xmlReturn"> <cfset xmlReturn = xmlParse(xmlReturn)> <cfset userIdNumber = xmlSearch(xmlReturn,'/LOGACK/Userid')> <cfset password = xmlSearch(xmlReturn,'/LOGACK/GUID')> <!--- invoke second webservice with values from first invocation ---> <cfinvoke webservice="https://www.navtrak.net/StreetSuiteAPI/SSClientAPI/StreetSui te.asmx?wsdl" method="AssetHistoryTimeFrame" returnvariable="xmlReturnAddressHistory"> <cfinvokeargument name="UserId" value="#userIdNumber[1].xmlText#"> <cfinvokeargument name="Password" value="#password[1].xmlText#"> <cfinvokeargument name="StartDate" value="02/03/2004 20:00:00.000"> <cfinvokeargument name="EndDate" value="02/03/2004 23:59:59.999"> <cfinvokeargument name="NetworkId" value="{ip address here}"> </cfinvoke> <cfset xmlReturnVehicleHistory = xmlParse(xmlReturnAddressHistory)> ....tony r e v o l u t i o n w e b d e s i g n [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.revolutionwebdesign.com its only looks good to those who can see bad as well -anonymous -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Watts Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] OT: invoking C# webservice > Has anyone invoked a C# webservice using CFMX? Yes. You may have problems when working with .NET datasets, or with other complex types. You may also have problems with complex WSDL like that used by the MapPoint service. If you post what you're trying to do, someone may have an answer. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev in Digest Mode. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
