Re: [foxboro] IACC v2.1

IACC was intended to support Block level locking, but the implementation had
holes so we don't offer it at this time.

Regards,
 
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10900 Equity Drive
Houston, TX 77041
713.329.8472 (voice)
713.329.1700 (fax)
713.329.1600 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Milum
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:03 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] IACC v2.1

On 5/3/06, Johnson, Alex P (IPS) <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Feature                   ICC  IACC  Comment
> # of users per database    1    1

Why? I would think that Block level locking would be feasible and an
attarctive feature. This would be one improvement over ICC that I
would really like. All modern databases include row level locking for
tables, what is the underlying database technology that the IACC uses?
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
 


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: