| Egbert Nierop \(MVP for IIS\) 2002-11-20, 3:23 pm |
| "Andy" <aon14@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:553b50a7.0211200815.1e3914fd@posting.google.com...
> "Egbert Nierop \(MVP for IIS\)" <egbert_nierop@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<#x6Qf#GkCHA.1584@tkmsftngp11>...
> <<>>
> > DOTNET even has taken a step further and locking nearly seems possible
or a
> > feature since everything is loosely connected.
>
> I don't really understand what you need.
> Optimistic locking has checksum.
> Isn't that enough?
>
No, Don't you understand that some products can not rely on just only *one*
DBMS? So a TIMESTAMP or checksum, column is already out of sight.
What I want, is simply **synchronization** just like a Mutex (win32) on a
single machine normally would achieve, but this time on multiple machines
(ASP.NET) for a single user.
A great possibility for instance, exists on Session components (that I
wrote) that need to be shared among a webfarm. As you can understand, you
cannot allow that a session will be red/updated concurrently by two pages
where TWO or more ASP.NET pages would *fight* for the update (one will
loose), right?
So what I did, is applying a (UPDLOCK) hint but that's really dirty, I ---do
not ---- want to apply non ANSI statements to SQL, I want the driver (in
ADO.NET or OleDB) handle that kind of locking for me.
(Compare with Conn.IsolationMode = xActSerializable)
|