I think people understand exactly what you're saying, but disagree.
Most applications don't use the more rigorous coding for having a
Locked clause that provides additional information to the user,
retries, etc. That's not "wrong", it's just not necessary ...
depending on the site.

That said, when we used to have a lot of people in an office and a
dumb terminal beeping was a recognized message to everyone, it was OK
(generally) to just do the READU. These days with more alternative
UIs, thick-client, thin-client, web services, mobile, etc, there's no
one to hear that beep. So for modern development I would agree that
you really don't want an unconditional lock hanging around, you want a
Locked clause with logic to rollback the transaction and exit
gracefully, perhaps with a message sent to the site admin.

The penalty for Not having a Locked clause with a new UI is that the
port will hang, the UI will receive a timeout (which many clients
aren't prepared to process), and the DBMS port could be sitting there
indefinitely with no one aware of the condition. This can cascade to
multiple ports until suddenly everything grinds to a halt and GUI
users around the world are unable to access the app. I believe some
heads will be nodding here because I hear about this happening


> From: Wjhonson 
> Then you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

> From: Kevin King 
> +1. Well stated.
> Woodward, Bob wrote: 
> > In an active user session where users are obtaining a lock for a
> > length of time, you're right.  There are lots of times, though,
> > lock intervention is not a benefit.  It all depends on the need of
> > application and many situations where I would highly recommend
> > using the default locking system of READU.

> > From: Wjhonson
> > I wouldn't however *recommend* this approach to locking as the
> > can never tell if their terminal is waiting on a lock, or just
> > in some other odd manner, or perhaps processing a batch of
> >
> > So it's rather a nasty trick to play on the user, to just use
> > without a LOCKED clause

U2-Users mailing list

Reply via email to