<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/143013</link>
		<description>Comments by Brian Landau</description>
<item>
<title>Union Station : A Guide to Optimistic Locking</title>
<link>http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2011/a-guide-to-optimistic-locking/#IDComment128318695</link>
<description>Thanks glad you liked the post! This is certainly a problem with this basic approach. As I say in my final thoughts, how I recover from conflicts here is not going to be an acceptable solution for every application. It is the most basic and the most &amp;quot;pain free&amp;quot; in my opinion though.    One thing you could consider changing here is in the &amp;quot;stale_record_recovery_action&amp;quot; method render a special &amp;quot;conflict&amp;quot; template that informs the user about the conflicts and asks how they specifically want to deal with each one.   Hopefully this guide just serves as good jumping off point for getting started with optimistic locking. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2011/a-guide-to-optimistic-locking/#IDComment128318695</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Union Station : A Guide to Optimistic Locking</title>
<link>http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2011/a-guide-to-optimistic-locking/#IDComment128316936</link>
<description>Yes, absolutely. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:06:53 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.engineyard.com/blog/2011/a-guide-to-optimistic-locking/#IDComment128316936</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>