>
>Well... If you've got a lot of that, you probably have a data model problem.
>
>However, if there is a conflict, you handle it by checking the error array.
>
>You do realize that the user was able to update the various tables and the begin transaction/end transaction happens after the user hits save?
>
>If there's a conflict, only the current user (the last one to try to save) has a problem. If you used pessimistic style, the last one trying to update the record would be prevented and then they might make the change they wanted when the locks were released. The last person always gets to make their change. This way you get the chance to show them what changed.
Mike,
Thank you for explaining how to deal with conflicts. I have to really think through this problem, come up with good design. Ideally I would like the design approach to be such that conceptually it would be possible to rewrite it in C# for .NET in the future (as this is my long-term goal). I think I will probably ask the same question on the .NET forum of UT to see how the .NET-developers approach a task of updating multiple tables.
Again, thank you.
"The creative process is nothing but a series of crises." Isaac Bashevis Singer
"My experience is that as soon as people are old enough to know better, they don't know anything at all." Oscar Wilde
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." W.Somerset Maugham
