Xref: utzoo comp.databases:2856 comp.sys.ibm.pc:30865 comp.dcom.lans:3083 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!ic2020!jim From: jim@ic2020.UUCP (Jim Carter) Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Concurrency Control + Question Message-ID: <221@ic2020.UUCP> Date: 30 Jun 89 14:06:25 GMT References: <25232@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Lines: 38 in article <25232@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, gblee@maui.cs.ucla.edu says: > > Please consider the following problems: ... We have a similar problem, which we have basically solved the problem by using xenix and foxbase+. If you are using dbase3+, I beleive you have the same record/file locking available to you. The record locking available in sco foxbase+ is quite nice. I have no idea what effects this would have on your network system. It has very little effect on our system. As far as paradox, Never used it but I would think the record/file locking is similar in use. The simple foxbase+ code to lock and edit a record is find name && lookup the correct record. if rlock() && returns true if record lock successfull. edit && edit this record. ( or modify somehow ) unlock() && unlock all locks you have set else ... display message, that you can not lock this record. endif MY QUESTION: The only problem I have had is on some operations that could effect ALL records, Exclusive access is required. I have not found a simple way to gain exclusive access. Anyone have a simple solution ? > Don't simply say you have to buy expensive Distributed DBMS or Minicomputer. > What is the constsructive solution for this problem? As far as constructive solution, my experience has shown that you do get what you pay for in the concurency area. I do think a larger system is better in the long run, but your network will do the job. > --Geunbae Lee,m UCLA-CS-AI. -- Jim Carter (Sequoia Contact Lens,1355 11th Street,Reedley,CA,93654) {...!csufres!csuf3b!ic2020!jim} 209/638-3939, Fax 209/638-5433