• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?


  • Subject: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • From: Patrick Middleton <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:06:52 +0000


On 6 Dec 2010, at 14:20, Simon wrote:

i was thinking the same - alternatively:

- do whatever is you are doing in a background thread
- switch on concurrent request handling, as i presume that it is actually the request that is blocking, not the DB as unless your are using something like m$ access (eeek!) then i would imagine your DB can actually do more than one thing at once
- if you are using m$ access, change it if you can, or resign if you can't
- re-work locking strategy to force an optimistic locking failure if more than one update goes through - even if that involves sticking a dummy attribute in that just increments with each transaction


what you are suggesting feels a bit like sticking some pedals on a car because the engine keeps stalling - probably best to fix the engine :-)

simon


What I am doing is reporting a bug in the WebObjects API adaptor, with the circumstances as how how I encountered it. It might be possible to deduce, for example, that the application list etc (see config.c in the Adaptors project) is in shared memory, while uniqueID_counter (see transaction.c) is not in shared memory, but should be, if we cared.

Anybody reading this list who is interested in the adaptor?


--- Regards Patrick OneStep Solutions (Research) LLP www.onestep.co.uk



This email, including any attachments, is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disseminate, distribute or copy any part of this email nor take any action in reliance on it.

If you have received this in error please notify the sender immediately by email or phone +44 (0)1702 426400 and delete this email and any attachments from your system.

Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

OneStep Solutions LLP is registered in England and Wales under registration number OC337173 and has its registered office at 457 Southchurch Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex SS1 2PH.
_______________________________________________
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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
      • From: Ralf Schuchardt <email@hidden>
    • Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
      • From: Mark Ritchie <email@hidden>
References: 
 >x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: Patrick Middleton <email@hidden>)
 >Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness? (From: Simon <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • Next by Date: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • Previous by thread: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • Next by thread: Re: x-webobjects-request-id lacking uniqueness?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread