W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [WebStorage] Concerns on spec section 'Processing Model'

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti <Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907242209590.15342@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > 
> > These are very different from concurrency bugs.
> 
> There are only three concurrency "bugs"
> 
> 1. The Lost Update Problem
> 2. The Temporary Update (or Dirty Read) Problem
> 3. The Incorrect Summary Problem.
> 
> Neither of these is related to the granularity of locking. All of these 
> are solved through the use of transactions.
> 
> If an application uses transactions correctly, then it is free from 
> concurrency bugs.

If you have two applications in two tabs, and they both need to read row 
A, then write to row B, and they start doing these two tasks 
simultaneously, how do you prevent either from failing if you don't have 
database-wide locking?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:11:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT