on 8/21/01 5:03 PM, "Jason Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Jon,
>
> The fact that mysql does not have transaction support by default was what
> prompted the question.
So, then enable it in MySQL.
> The mysql doco nominates table locking as the way
> to avoid concurrency issues, however, as stated below, the introduction
> of Torque locking calls into my code seems like bad practise. I note
> that neither Turbine or scarab use DB.lockTable(), presumably for the
> same reason.
Right...it doesn't need to.
> The only real thing that comes to mind is to synchronise my business
> methods, however if disparate classes reference the same tables, it
> starts to become difficult.
Yup.
> I thought about ditching mysql for something that does support
> transactions, but assumed that if Turbine/scarab use mysql, then there
> must be a simple/analogous technique for setting up transaction-like
> safety.
>
> Tips appreciated.
Even with transactions, you are going to need to handle those transactions
appropriately. In other words, what do you do on failure? You rollback, but
then what?
In Scarab's view, so far, we just do things on a first come first served
basis. If two people are working on the same issue, right now, there is a
chance that things could become out of sync ui wise. Eventually, we will
build a system on top of that that will present a UI that allows people to
handle that case more gracefully.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
