>>>I was thinking to use some scheme to limit the number of users connected simultaneously (example: limit to 5 users). Locking 5 consecutive records in a table seems safer than saving information to a table. For, if the user's computer hangs, he will remain "logged in", if I use a REPLACE scheme.
>>>
>>>Hilmar.
>>
>>Take a look at the article 'Limiting Simultaneous Users' by Craig Berntson http://www.craigberntson.com/Articles/kb003.htm
>
>Thanks for the link. However, I wanted to ask what you think about the following: wouldn't it be simpler to place locks on 5 (or 10 - depending on the number of licenses) consecutive records in a table, instead of creating files with LLFF and seeing whether they can be opened? Or would record locking be less safe, for some reason?
>
>Hilmar.

Hilmar,

From my experience, locking over a network may take 1-2 seconds if the record is locked by someone else on a different computer

Even with fopen() it may take some time.

If you consider locking records, take a look at
- set reprocess
- sys(3051, ms) && reprocess wait in ms after an unsuccesful lock.

The command above will reduce the time to lock a record if the first attempt is unsuccessful


Also do a google search on them. There was a discussion a few months back