Evan,
I like your addition of the timestamp field for those who want to enforce
concurrency this way. Do you actually use a *timestamp*? If so, are there
potential problems with collisions?
jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Evan Ireland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Comparison of solutions for staledatacheckingandshorttransactions
> Jonathan Weedon wrote:
> >
> > <vendor>
> >
> > I just wanted to point out (for those that don't know) that our CMP
> > engine provides such "searched" or "verified" updates automatically.
> > ...
>
> <vendor>
>
> Well what do you know, so does Sybase EAServer 3.6.1! And we go even further,
> we enable it by default (all fields value comparison) and allow it to be
> disabled (or to use a timestamp column) for each CMP entity bean.
>
> </vendor>
>
> I am constantly surprised by the number of times I see BMP entity beans that
do
> not account for update conflicts. When you consider that EJB 1.1 did away with
> most of the useful forms of declarative transaction isolation, it is quite
> worrying.
>
> Fortunately some of the vendors care enough to account for these problems with
> their CMP engines!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Evan Ireland Sybase EAServer Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Wellington, New Zealand +64 4
934-5856
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
