I'm "suggesting" that blinding skipping records is a HORRIBLE idea, and in our case, potentially life threatening - literally. You need to get real with your suggestion that coding for deadly embrace situations is a "very easy solution" (your words). Not every phantom is a mass update. The IS real-life... we're talking about 1/2 dozen hospitals plus around 4 dozen clinics all putting orders in and receiving status updates & results in real time 24x7, the possibility for such occurrences takes REAL programming responses not off the cuff and rather simplistic canned answers. In fact, record locks for patient's lab results occurs all the time. We've taken many steps to minimize the possibility of a deadly embrace occurring - such as wrapping READU calls within a single subroutine that allows us significant;y better monitoring and control and programming practices. Some processes that lock have users in front of them -MLTs, MTs, MDs & PhDs putting in results and interpretations . Some don't - interfaces in- and out-bound to dozens of systems for example. Sorry, but as I've been working with lab results for over 15 years now, I know what I'm talking about. It doesn't get any more real... sorry to burst your bubble. So you come on ... admit that programming for this is not "a very easy solution". Robert
>>> Mecki Foerthmann <[email protected]> 10/26/2011 2:44 PM >>> Come on, get real. Do you suggest the "deadly embrace" would be better and he would get his results any quicker? And anyway, an ER doc not getting his lab results because of a mass update process running as a phantom encountering a locked record? And who would hold a lock on those lab results while they are being transferred? Come up with a real life problem and I'll give you a real life solution. Remember, the impossible I do straight away but miracles may take a bit longer! Mecki On 26/10/2011 13:45, Robert Porter wrote: > Accountants... How about a ER doc waiting on lab results for cardiac enzymes? > I can hear it now: "Sorry Doc, something else locked the record. Your > patient's test request was skipped so we could implement a trivial solution > that was suggested for deadly embrace. Try again, and hope for the best that > it goes through this time." > > > > Robert F. Porter, MCSE, CCNA, ZCE, OCP-Java > Lead Sr. Programmer / Analyst > Laboratory Information Services > Ochsner Health System > > > > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential > information, privileged material (including material protected by the > solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public > information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, > please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your > system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this > transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. > > >>>> Wjhonson<[email protected]> 10/25/2011 1:20 PM>>> > Your second solution only works if one of the processes is controlled by a > human. > I've encountered deadly embraces between two phantom routines. > > Your first solution works, if we have the luxury of skipping locked records. > Some update routines, don't have that luxury as most accountants will let you > know quite clearly with loud noises and waving of arms. > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
