Ha. Right, thanks.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "optimistic-lock=dirty"
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Sidar Ok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Using SQL ? Timestamps can be a consideration.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Miika Makinen
"optimistic-lock=dirty"
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Sidar Ok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using SQL ? Timestamps can be a consideration.
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Miika Makinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,I have a requirement to do optimistic concurrency on field level
Can you elaborate? I'd basically like to have a Person with FirstName and
LastName and let one session change the FirstName and another the LastName
without exceptions. Won't I need to version the fields individually then?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Sidar Ok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Usin
Using SQL ? Timestamps can be a consideration.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Miika Makinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,I have a requirement to do optimistic concurrency on field level.
> How would you approach this? Will that mean just very granular entities and
> tables or?
>
> Cheers
