From: Carl Beame (beame@mail1.tinet.ie)
Date: 07/16/98-12:19:36 PM Z
From: Carl Beame <beame@mail1.tinet.ie> Subject: RE: Atomic operations - Comments Please Message-Id: <1998Jul16.182300+0100@games> Date: 16 Jul 1998 18:19:36 +0100 On Thu Jul 16 17:45:36 1998, Boris Z. wrote: > Is BEGIN/END ATOMIC an attempt to add server based transaction > atomicity to compound requests? > If it just an isolation of client requests, how is it different from > adding > "NLM_SHARE(?, DENY_RW),?, restore Share level" to a compound request? > > NLM_SHARE is used by PC clients to perform a very specific SHARE request which is in force over the lifetime that the client has a file open. What I am suggesting is a way to allow a compound request to be atomic with having to assume that for all compound requests. The second option of the MUTEX is a more cooperative and very specific method which would be less of a burden then the ATOMIC operator. - Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:45:58 AM Z CST