RE: Multi User Record Locking
you write:
"For example, if you are entering payments on an account, you can make payments directly into a payments table and do a posting to the invoice header. This will not cause any locking issues to arise in the invoice header or the customer tables."
When you post to the invoice header, doesn't that lock the header? If not, you could have two people trying to update the same header at the same time which is something you wouldn't want to do.
when you post to the invoice header, it locks the header for a fraction of a second. that is the kind of locking you want to have and it is automatic in alpha five.
you write:
Secondly, when you use the term "set", are you referring only to tables that have been explicity "connected" for referential integrity purposes? I am trying to compare this to the Visual FoxPro concept of a view in which tables are related, but RI is not necessarily enforced. If I understand the set concept then, you are advising that data entry only be done in a single table modal-type form, and that all related updates be done through field rules, etc. Is this correct?
Bob Gluck
no, i don't mean tables connected for referential integrity. in fact, i don't use referential integrity at all in my applications--it slows things down tremendously. what tom cone and i were saying is that we try to minimize the number of related tables appearing in any data entry form. this is discussed more fully in the article on "simplifying your application" at learn alpha.com.
you write:
"For example, if you are entering payments on an account, you can make payments directly into a payments table and do a posting to the invoice header. This will not cause any locking issues to arise in the invoice header or the customer tables."
When you post to the invoice header, doesn't that lock the header? If not, you could have two people trying to update the same header at the same time which is something you wouldn't want to do.
when you post to the invoice header, it locks the header for a fraction of a second. that is the kind of locking you want to have and it is automatic in alpha five.
you write:
Secondly, when you use the term "set", are you referring only to tables that have been explicity "connected" for referential integrity purposes? I am trying to compare this to the Visual FoxPro concept of a view in which tables are related, but RI is not necessarily enforced. If I understand the set concept then, you are advising that data entry only be done in a single table modal-type form, and that all related updates be done through field rules, etc. Is this correct?
Bob Gluck
no, i don't mean tables connected for referential integrity. in fact, i don't use referential integrity at all in my applications--it slows things down tremendously. what tom cone and i were saying is that we try to minimize the number of related tables appearing in any data entry form. this is discussed more fully in the article on "simplifying your application" at learn alpha.com.
Comment