>> >> Would it be OK to create a model and its corresponding table for just >> locking? i.e. Lock model and locks table. > > That would be pointless. If you wrap your DB operations in a > transaction, you will automatically get the appropriate locks -- and the > DB will keep track of them, so you don't have to. > > Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koser > http://www.marnen.org > [email protected]
Yes, I got your point. But I think that the situation is not that clear. I don't know a single model to have a transaction open and be safe after. So you might be right if I had a design which kept that in mind right from the beginning. But -at least as a workaround- I need something like that. A moment ago, I found this: http://kseebaldt.blogspot.com/2007/11/synchronizing-using-active-record.html This is pretty much the functionality I require. I think I will use this. Didn't anybody require anything like this? Thanks Onur -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
