> Yep. It only works correctly if the conditions are "perfect" :). But I > sure will miss it! I'm highly considering creating a local fork of jooq and > customising some bits to suit my needs. That way I only have to consider my > immediate use case. >
Don't worry. I won't remove it immediately. Anyway, not before jOOQ 4.0... Maybe there is a good solution, still. So let's wait with action, for now. > You'll have to explain the low-hanging fruit metaphor. > Well, jOOQ *seems* to have all the necessary information for a simple implementation of optimistic locking. But in fact, it doesn't because jOOQ knows nothing about surrounding transactions. As locking is always tightly coupled with transaction handling, what looks like a low-hanging fruit (easy to implement) is in fact pandora's box... Get it? :-) Cheers Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
