|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Any way to force an update after DBConcurrencyException thrown?I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a
solution to force an update to a table, even if a DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a last-in-wins scenario? Thanks in advance for your responses! Perhaps you could switch off concurrency check (remove the WHERE condition)?
-- Show quoteMiha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia] RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/ <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1160054183.828355.215540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a > solution to force an update to a table, even if a > DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any > tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the > particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a > last-in-wins scenario? > > Thanks in advance for your responses! > Look at Dino Espositos articles. He has dealt with concurrency in many
instances. Worst case is firing the update command directly, outside of the adapter, which would force a last in wins scenario. Some ADO.NET 1.x articles http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/ In particular: http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/03/04/dataconcurrency/toc.asp -- Show quoteGregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com ************************************************* Think outside of the box! ************************************************* <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1160054183.828355.215540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a > solution to force an update to a table, even if a > DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any > tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the > particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a > last-in-wins scenario? > > Thanks in advance for your responses! > Thanks to both of you for the responses.
....Yikes! When I turned off the optimistic WHERE check, it didn't have exactly the effect I was hoping for. I was hoping all this time that only specifically changed fields in a datarow inside my DataSet's datatable were being changed, but that is obviously not the case. I tried changing a different field on the same record on two different clients, and the only data that persisted after both saved was the exact view of the data from the last-in client. Is there any way that doesn't involve thousands of lines of code that can fix this? Also, I did read through the article re: DataSets and using the RowUpdate, and it was interesting, but ultimately frustrating as I'm using C# and not VB and am using the command-building stuff in Visual Studio. I wish there were a lot more articles from MSDN regarding C# and Visual Studio 2005, but especially when trying to find info about how all of their automatic command-builder and Dataset stuff works, I've found very little about it. Maybe I'm just looking in all the wrong places, but I can't believe that I'm the only person out there who occasionally has two users edit the same record and need to do something about it! Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote: Show quote > Look at Dino Espositos articles. He has dealt with concurrency in many > instances. Worst case is firing the update command directly, outside of the > adapter, which would force a last in wins scenario. > > Some ADO.NET 1.x articles > http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/ > > In particular: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/03/04/dataconcurrency/toc.asp > > > -- > Gregory A. Beamer > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA > http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com > > ************************************************* > Think outside of the box! > ************************************************* > <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1160054183.828355.215540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a > > solution to force an update to a table, even if a > > DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any > > tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the > > particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a > > last-in-wins scenario? > > > > Thanks in advance for your responses! > > Hi,
So, if I understand your scenario, you want to update just *modified* fileds, right? This isn't trivial at all as you would have to generate an update statement for each row (you'll have to build sql statement on the fly based on comparing field's original and current value) and you would have to iterate manually (instead of simply using Update method). Perhaps there is a better way I am not aware of... -- Show quoteMiha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia] RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/ <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1160138897.488771.148690@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Thanks to both of you for the responses. > > ...Yikes! When I turned off the optimistic WHERE check, it didn't have > exactly the effect I was hoping for. I was hoping all this time that > only specifically changed fields in a datarow inside my DataSet's > datatable were being changed, but that is obviously not the case. I > tried changing a different field on the same record on two different > clients, and the only data that persisted after both saved was the > exact view of the data from the last-in client. Is there any way that > doesn't involve thousands of lines of code that can fix this? > > Also, I did read through the article re: DataSets and using the > RowUpdate, and it was interesting, but ultimately frustrating as I'm > using C# and not VB and am using the command-building stuff in Visual > Studio. I wish there were a lot more articles from MSDN regarding C# > and Visual Studio 2005, but especially when trying to find info about > how all of their automatic command-builder and Dataset stuff works, > I've found very little about it. Maybe I'm just looking in all the > wrong places, but I can't believe that I'm the only person out there > who occasionally has two users edit the same record and need to do > something about it! > > > > Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote: >> Look at Dino Espositos articles. He has dealt with concurrency in many >> instances. Worst case is firing the update command directly, outside of >> the >> adapter, which would force a last in wins scenario. >> >> Some ADO.NET 1.x articles >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/ >> >> In particular: >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/03/04/dataconcurrency/toc.asp >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Beamer >> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA >> http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com >> >> ************************************************* >> Think outside of the box! >> ************************************************* >> <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1160054183.828355.215540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a >> > solution to force an update to a table, even if a >> > DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any >> > tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the >> > particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a >> > last-in-wins scenario? >> > >> > Thanks in advance for your responses! >> > > That is one of the features of the LLBLGen ORM product at www.llblgen.com
Concurrency control by default only sends an update statement with the fields that have changed for each row. You also have the option to override it as needed. <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message Show quote news:1160138897.488771.148690@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Thanks to both of you for the responses. > > ...Yikes! When I turned off the optimistic WHERE check, it didn't have > exactly the effect I was hoping for. I was hoping all this time that > only specifically changed fields in a datarow inside my DataSet's > datatable were being changed, but that is obviously not the case. I > tried changing a different field on the same record on two different > clients, and the only data that persisted after both saved was the > exact view of the data from the last-in client. Is there any way that > doesn't involve thousands of lines of code that can fix this? > > Also, I did read through the article re: DataSets and using the > RowUpdate, and it was interesting, but ultimately frustrating as I'm > using C# and not VB and am using the command-building stuff in Visual > Studio. I wish there were a lot more articles from MSDN regarding C# > and Visual Studio 2005, but especially when trying to find info about > how all of their automatic command-builder and Dataset stuff works, > I've found very little about it. Maybe I'm just looking in all the > wrong places, but I can't believe that I'm the only person out there > who occasionally has two users edit the same record and need to do > something about it! > > > > Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote: >> Look at Dino Espositos articles. He has dealt with concurrency in many >> instances. Worst case is firing the update command directly, outside of >> the >> adapter, which would force a last in wins scenario. >> >> Some ADO.NET 1.x articles >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/ >> >> In particular: >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/03/04/dataconcurrency/toc.asp >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Beamer >> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA >> http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com >> >> ************************************************* >> Think outside of the box! >> ************************************************* >> <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1160054183.828355.215540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a >> > solution to force an update to a table, even if a >> > DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any >> > tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the >> > particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a >> > last-in-wins scenario? >> > >> > Thanks in advance for your responses! >> > > CommandBuilder provides you exactly what you are looking for.
Let me show you the following code snippet: public static DbCommandBuilder CreateCommandBuilder( DbDataAdapter adapter, string Provider) { DbProviderFactory factory = DbProviderFactories.GetFactory(Provider); DbCommandBuilder cmdbuilder = factory.CreateCommandBuilder(); cmdbuilder.ConflictOption = ConflictOption.OverwriteChanges; cmdbuilder.SetAllValues = false; cmdbuilder.DataAdapter = adapter; return cmdbuilder; } Command builders subscribe to DbDataAdapter.RowUpdating event, and generate proper commands. if you set cmdBuilder.ConflictOption = ConflicOption.OvewriteChages, the command builder includes only the primary key fields in where clauses of update and delete commands, implementing the last-in-wins model. if you set cmdBuilder.SetAllValues = false, which is the default, the comand builder includes only the changed fields in SET clause of UPDATE command. This is what you are looking for, right? Regards from Madrid (Spain) Jesús López <mracurainte***@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje Show quote news:1160138897.488771.148690@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Thanks to both of you for the responses. > > ...Yikes! When I turned off the optimistic WHERE check, it didn't have > exactly the effect I was hoping for. I was hoping all this time that > only specifically changed fields in a datarow inside my DataSet's > datatable were being changed, but that is obviously not the case. I > tried changing a different field on the same record on two different > clients, and the only data that persisted after both saved was the > exact view of the data from the last-in client. Is there any way that > doesn't involve thousands of lines of code that can fix this? > > Also, I did read through the article re: DataSets and using the > RowUpdate, and it was interesting, but ultimately frustrating as I'm > using C# and not VB and am using the command-building stuff in Visual > Studio. I wish there were a lot more articles from MSDN regarding C# > and Visual Studio 2005, but especially when trying to find info about > how all of their automatic command-builder and Dataset stuff works, > I've found very little about it. Maybe I'm just looking in all the > wrong places, but I can't believe that I'm the only person out there > who occasionally has two users edit the same record and need to do > something about it! > > > > Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote: >> Look at Dino Espositos articles. He has dealt with concurrency in many >> instances. Worst case is firing the update command directly, outside of >> the >> adapter, which would force a last in wins scenario. >> >> Some ADO.NET 1.x articles >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/ >> >> In particular: >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/prev/ref/adonet/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/03/04/dataconcurrency/toc.asp >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Beamer >> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA >> http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com >> >> ************************************************* >> Think outside of the box! >> ************************************************* >> <mracurainte***@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1160054183.828355.215540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > I've tried everything I can think of, but I'm still struggling with a >> > solution to force an update to a table, even if a >> > DBConcurrencyException is thrown in my application. Is there any >> > tried-and-true solution to allow an Update to occur, even if the >> > particular record isn't concurrent - in essence, implementing a >> > last-in-wins scenario? >> > >> > Thanks in advance for your responses! >> > >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics