Deadly Embraces cannot be avoided by use of a LOCKED clause.
That's not what it means.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Stevenson <stevenson.c...@gmail.com>
To: U2 Users List <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org>
Sent: Tue, Oct 25, 2011 6:29 am
Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] LIST.READU EVERY's "waiters" when there are writes w/o
explicit readu.
Yes.
Today, deadly embraces can be avoided via LOCKED clauses.
In days of yore, Pick's READU syntax did not allow a LOCKED clause.
BTW, I advocate 2 Programming Standards:
1. If a lock is taken (READU, RECORDLOCKU, FILELOCK, etc.), a
LOCKED clause must be present.
2. A lock must be set explicitly before any update may be attempted.
cds
On 10/24/2011 8:01 PM, Paul Wilson wrote:
> Why the 'deadly embrace' issue
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wjhonson<wjhon...@aol.com>
>
> 20 points to anyone who is old enough to remember *why* we couldn't rely on
the Locked clause.
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
