It's been rumoured that Christopher Browne said:
>
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 22:25:48 PST, the world broke into rejoicing as
> Rob Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > >>>>> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:46:52 -0600, Christopher Browne
> > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > Christopher> d) The other thing that would logically go along with
> > Christopher> this would be to have some sort of "transaction lock"
> > Christopher> scheme which would forbid two windows from modifying the
> > Christopher> same transaction at the same time.
> >
> > why? whatever one was committed last would take precedence, no?
>
> One of the goals is to allow GnuCash to support having multiple users
> working on things at once.
>
> And it's not acceptable to assume that they *know* they're trampling
> on one another; it is better to tell at least one of them that they're
> "trampling" and indicate that this isn't being permitted.
There are situations where its even worse. The classic example:
There's a bank account with $50 in it. Two users walk up to two ATM's
at the same time, and access this account at the same time. Both see the
$50 balance, and withdraw $50. At the end of the day, the recorded
balance is ???
Traditional solutions to this are to lock down the entire account.
But I think there's a better way:
Traditional source control systems (e.g. RCS, CMVC) lock down an entire
file and let only one user edit it. But systems like CVS allow multiple
writers to make simulataneous changes, and instead flag conflicts.
I think something similar can be done for financial info when multiple
users are accessing one account. This would avoid deadlocks/lockouts
just because the accountant went out to lunch without closing all of
thier windows.
--linas
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
