On 2015-01-20, 2:02 PM, "OC" wrote:
Chuck,
On 20. 1. 2015, at 20:19, Chuck Hill
mailto:ch...@gevityinc.com>> wrote:
I can’t think of a good solution either. This will happen without the
synchronizer too, if a different instance deletes it. What would you want to
happen?
That's the questi
Chuck,
On 20. 1. 2015, at 20:19, Chuck Hill wrote:
> I can’t think of a good solution either. This will happen without the
> synchronizer too, if a different instance deletes it. What would you want to
> happen?
That's the question.
I might be missing something, but it seems to me that th
I can't think of a good solution either. This will happen without the
synchronizer too, if a different instance deletes it. What would you want to
happen?
Chuck
On 2015-01-20, 6:31 AM, "OC" wrote:
Hello there,
I've just bumped into a new problem. Unless I am doing something wrong, it does
Ken,
On 20. 1. 2015, at 15:37, Ken Anderson wrote:
> Is there a reason you’re storing the result of the relationship instead of
> the source? If you stored one level up, you’d properly get a null result
> instead of a stale fault.
Absolutely -- "If I wrote my code afresh, I could make sure t
Is there a reason you’re storing the result of the relationship instead of the
source? If you stored one level up, you’d properly get a null result instead
of a stale fault.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 8:01 PM, OC wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I've just bumped into a new problem. Unless I am doing som
Hello there,
I've just bumped into a new problem. Unless I am doing something wrong, it does
not seem the remote synchronizer helps in this scenario; and I wonder, whether
there are some well-known and common tricks to solve it in general?
The scenario is quite plain:
(a) instance A gets and s
