Re: multi user increment
Re: multi user increment
- Subject: Re: multi user increment
- From: Guido Neitzer <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:12:07 +0100
On 06.02.2006, at 16:55 Uhr, Miguel Arroz wrote:
That's not the right way to do this. Don't forget that, at EO
level, you don't even know what are tables... worst, you may not
lock them (unless writing SQL code directly, but that is NOT EO at
all!).
I know that it's not. You're absolutely right. But what helps: if you
have to deal with a lot of db traffic instead (reading, writing,
resolving opt. locking failure, reading again, trying to write
again ...) I prefer to use - for this special case - a direct sql call.
And really: I don't like sql, I avoid to use it whereever I can. But
in this case (a seq numbers, without holes) it may be a shorter,
faster way. I had to solve a lot of things in the past that just
weren't possible with EOF without significant performance hits and a
lot of code but were done with one longer line of sql. Sometimes this
is the way to go. Most times, it is not.
cug
--
PharmaLine, Essen, GERMANY
Software and Database Development
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden