Why not just put a lock on the file? Same thing. I was thinking of
<select-for-update> more in the abstract. The CMP mechanism or the database
type-mapping could define what <select-for-update> actually meant.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Rickard Öberg
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ditch entity locking in favor of
> <select-for-update>
>
>
> >The recents questions posted by James Cook got me thinking. Maybe we
> should
> >ditch the current entity locking scheme in favor of using
> ><select-for-update>. It would greatly simplify the entity/cache locking
> >mechanism, thus probably making it much more robust than it currently is.
> >Of course, we'd have to improve select-for-update so that it
> worked across
> a
> >greater range of databases and keep the old entity/cache locking for
> >databases that didn't. Also, what about BMP? Does the spec
> allow for the
> >container to pass on synchronization responsibities to the Bean
> Developer?
> >I'll have to check.
>
>
> Note that not all Entities are backed by DBMS's. In the app I'm working on
> currently they almost never are. Instead, I'm using XML files as
> the backing
> store, so using select-for-update is not an option.
>
> /Rickard
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
