Re: RFC: Preventing double-updates

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 7/13/07, Ed W <..hidden..> wrote:
> Well I think you just highlighted that different sorts of locks are
> suitable for different areas of the app!

Agreed.

> I would agree that batch jobs need pessamistic locking though - or more
> precisely it's no good getting to the end of your 20 min job and being
> told that it failed!
>
> However, I would have thought that editing a Sales Order came under the
> heading of where optimistic locking might be more suitable?  If we
> wanted to get flash we could even try to show a flag at the bottom of
> the edit screen showing which other user was potentially editing the
> same sales order (wouldn't be all that accurate of course) - the final
> arbitration would be when you hit save though.

I would agree.  I would generally say that quick operations on
non-financial aspects of the software should use optimistic locking.
Stored fnancial documents only have a limited number of alterations
(approve a voucher, reverse a transaction, etc).  Eventially we will
probably want to separate viewing and editing into different stages so
we can properly handle such issues.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers