On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Christian Grün <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:christian.gruen@gmail.com">christian.gruen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">&gt; In particular, I&#39;m wondering if multiple concurrent updates are unsafe (that<br>
&gt; is, lead to internal inconsistencies in BaseX that prevent further use of<br>
&gt; the database)<br>
<br>
</div>dito.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
&gt; What does &#39;this&#39; in your sentence refer to?  Safety?  Serializability?<br>
&gt; Transactions?<br>
<br>
</div>it simply means we have no free resources to put more effort on XQJ<br>
update issues. sorry.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m slow and I&#39;m sorry I don&#39;t distinguish between XQJ, XQJ updates, and BaseX. </div><div><br></div><div>Is it possible to use BaseX as a library and have multiple JVMs access and update the same database in a way that is safe?</div>
<div><br></div><div>If so, how?</div><div><br></div><div>As I&#39;ve stated before, I would prefer a non-BaseX-specific way of interacting with it, such as XQJ, but if that&#39;s not possible because XQJ is in essence a standard never adopted and soon to be abandoned, then I&#39;m also fine with any robust method that allows me to link my in-memory, org.w3c.dom* implementation-based model to the database. (I had sent out an email about this previously, with no resonance.)</div>
<div><br></div><div> - Godmar</div><div><br></div></div>