I did the select for update. It would be easy to add NOT WAIT. I suggest
<select-for-update-no-wait>. It would be very easy to implement. Take a
look if you want to implement it yourself.
I do disagree that most applications will want to throw an exception in case
of a lock not being acquired. For instance, we use select for update to
synch multiple instances of JBoss running on different machines. Plus, I
think select for update will timeout eventually with the transaction, won't
it?
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vinay
> Menon
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 7:07 AM
> To: Dev @ JBoss
> Subject: [JBoss-dev] SELECT FOR UPDATE
>
>
> Hello,
> There is no option to do a SELECT .. FOR UPDATE ... NOT WAIT option in
> the current JAWS release. Most applications will just want to throw an
> exception in case a lock could not be acquired to let the user
> know that the
> record is being edited. And if you consider a case where you have client
> waiting for a lock to be released and some database problems occur that
> cause it to stall it could grow quite quickly with the number of clients
> waiting for a lock. As we planning for something of a NO WAIT
> option [as in
> Oracle] for this?
>
> Vinay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
