I never said anything about blindly (I guess that's what you meant)
skipping records.
I suggested writing the locked record ids somewhere else and process
them later for Wills not necessarily life-threatening sales rep update
phantom.
I at least don't feel threatened by accountants.
If somebody is locking the record there must be a reason for it.
If it's a good one or not doesn't matter.
And who knows, when the process tries again a couple of minutes later
the lock may have been released by then.
That way a lock on a standard blood test doesn't stop the process from
sending the important lab report next in line for processing to the ER
doc you talked about.
If it is really life threatening I would find out who holds the lock and
take severe action instead.
This could be an email or even a message sent directly to the locking
screen that they are killing somebody in the hospital if they don't get
out of Dodge immediately.
And if they don't respond within a minute or so just kick them off the
system. That will release the lock every time.
You may also think about using optimistic locking for some or all of the
processes that have users in front of them.
You can even put some extra intelligence into that.
So instead of refusing the update of a record because it has changed
since it was read you can allow the update of empty attributes.
All this can be done with 2 subroutines. One for reads and one for writes.
It requires to write some code of course. But isn't that what we do for
a living?
Now I have never worked with lab results and came up with several
solutions within minutes.
Should be very easy to write for a 15 year veteran.
And it sounds like you've done something similar, so what was so
incredible hard about it?
But maybe what I regard as easy may appear hard to others.
Mecki
On 26/10/2011 21:44, Robert Porter wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
