cody koeninger c...@koeninger.org writes:
On Dec 6, 9:16 pm, Alex Boisvert alex.boisv...@gmail.com wrote:
Lift's mapper doesn't change the default isolation level of your
connections, nor does it make explicit use of pessimistic concurrency
control.
Anything beyond that we can probably
On Dec 8, 2:19 am, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen je...@ingolfs.dk wrote:
record will not be unlocked until the session times out
I thought it was stated above that the transaction is scoped to the
request by default, not the session?
A much better solution imo is to use optimistic locking.
I'm
cody koeninger c...@koeninger.org writes:
On Dec 8, 2:19 am, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen je...@ingolfs.dk wrote:
record will not be unlocked until the session times out
I thought it was stated above that the transaction is scoped to the
request by default, not the session?
It is. But even if
On Dec 8, 2:53 pm, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen je...@ingolfs.dk wrote:
Maybe I don't really understand what you mean when you say data
consistency. A pessimistic lock is only useful within a single database
transaction. In my experience, in a web app, a user transaction (such as
loading a record,
On Dec 6, 9:16 pm, Alex Boisvert alex.boisv...@gmail.com wrote:
Lift's mapper doesn't change the default isolation level of your
connections, nor does it make explicit use of pessimistic concurrency
control.
Anything beyond that we can probably implement, we just need a good
reason...
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:02 AM, cody koeninger c...@koeninger.org wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:16 pm, Alex Boisvert alex.boisv...@gmail.com wrote:
Lift's mapper doesn't change the default isolation level of your
connections, nor does it make explicit use of pessimistic concurrency
control.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Alex Boisvert alex.boisv...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:02 AM, cody koeninger c...@koeninger.org wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:16 pm, Alex Boisvert alex.boisv...@gmail.com wrote:
Lift's mapper doesn't change the default isolation level of your
On Dec 7, 1:54 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free to open a ticket. We prioritize work for production sites (or
sites that are destined for production). If you meet that criteria, please
add this to the ticket so we can decide on what the priority is.
Thanks,
