NoLocks // 1.9.8b10 adoption of record locks. Feedback

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

on 7/4/03 18:20, erne at ernestogiannotta at tiscalinet.it wrote:

>> Just thinking out loud...
>> I wonder if there is a logical way to time-out a cursor of locked
>> records, and possibly cue requests for records? Does this make any
>> sense? Any ideas?
>> 
> 
> you mean a cursor being released by a timeout while you're dealing with it? of
> course not! cues is way more civil and preferable behaviour :-)
> 
> I don't see though how these could be organized, sure a limit of mine
> 
> Ruslan says that manual locking could result in a server under assault from
> small clients' requests but I still don't see no difference in current
> approach... clients will still have to issue multiple queries for their
> cursors in a tight loop hoping to find a hole to slip their request in
> 
> or maybe I don't understand it well...

Look,

In 2.0 we will add feature that when you ask for some cursor and server
cannot set lock(s) this task will go sleep on some time, and later will try
again.

This will be continued e.g. 5 seconds.
In case server was not able set locks for this 5 seconds, you get the same
error CannotSetlocks.

So your current sources still will work, just loop will be not so tight.


-- 
Best regards,
Ruslan Zasukhin      [ I feel the need...the need for speed ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: ruslan at paradigmasoft.com
web: http://www.paradigmasoft.com

To subscribe to the Valentina mail list go to:
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
-------------------------------------------------------------