Yes, 3 is a good way if transactionsa are very "short" (transaction per
operation aka autocommit),
it solves deadlock problem and most of conflicts ( optimistic loclking can
solve the rest ).
But I do not think all of applications can use this way, most of my
applications can't.
Think about Gavin'
"Juozas Baliuka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Databases lock updated and deleted rows only and transaction blocks
> on conflict only, it never block query or not conflictiong updates,
> I see three ways to solve update conflict:
> 1) block transaction
> 2) abort transaction
> 3) no concurent tra
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 04:44:06PM -0700, David Morris wrote:
> I am having some problems in non-hibernate packages that use CGLIB since
> updating Hibernate from CVS. Are there any known issues and if so is
> there an upgrade guide?
CGLIB 1.0 and 2.0 are not binary compatible, but the patche to u
I am having some problems in non-hibernate packages that use CGLIB since
updating Hibernate from CVS. Are there any known issues and if so is
there an upgrade guide?
Thanks,
David Morris
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback P
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Megacz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 4:46 AM
Subject: [Hibernate] in-memory databases vs query-in-memory databases
>
> Okay, this isn't 100% hibernate-related, but I figure you guys think a
> lot about stuf
On 26 Nov (19:53), khote wrote:
> And in the vein of What have you done for me lately, when can we hope for a
> Hibernate in Action book to come out?
Expect it in the second quarter of 2004.
--
Christian Bauer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This SF.
Hi dosapati,
I had the same problem as you ('0' being saved into the DB regardless of the
value set). It turns out that the problem was with the mysql jdbc driver I
was using. I was using the "org.gjt.mm.mysql.Driver" version but am now
using the "com.mysql.jdbc.Driver" version (the so-called off
Gavin King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What of you need to make a remote call, or send a message inside the
> txn? Your analysis assumes that the system is not distributed in any way. :)
Optimistic locking can be layered on top of a system like this.
I don't believe that non-optimistically-lo
