On Nov 22, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Paul Penrod wrote:
Forking a process for communication does not require significant
additional complexity
if it's done right. Even DOS was capable of background transmission,
which I did way
back in the 80's. Windows XP is the baseline for all the machines here
in our stake and
it is far more capable of background transmission - especially over
modem.
Just a brief comment on this. I don't think that the communication
portion is the problem, it is keeping the data in a consistent
state. If a membership record is being updated because new data
comes in and a membership clerk is updating that record at the same
time then you have a potential problem.
That problem isn't impossible to overcome either, but does require
more work. At what level do you lock the data? From a database
point of view think of this as table level locks versus row level
locks. Or for OS people, a big giant lock versus fine grained sub-
system locks.
Of all the complaints I have about the MLS software, I can at least
appreciate the trade off on this one.
--
Joseph Scott
http://joseph.randomnetworks.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
