It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Exclusive lock for non mergable files


Dr. Hans-Joachim Pross (1.1k4258) | asked Aug 02 '10, 6:45 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
edited Oct 05 '17, 11:28 p.m. by David Lafreniere (4.4k7)

Is there a way to lock a file exclusively?

I know, that there is lock function available.
But when I lock a file (on a stream) others can still edit and check in this file. Solely delivering this file to the stream where it was locked is disabled.

For files where we would completely disable merges, this the "latest" possibility. Other users might waste a lot of time with changes, that they can never deliver.

Accepted answer


permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (29.4k23035) | answered Aug 02 '10, 7:25 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
edited Oct 05 '17, 11:26 p.m. by David Lafreniere (4.4k7)

This is work item 89703. This "Pessimistic Locking" feature was delivered in RTC 5.0.2.

Cheers,
Geoff

David Lafreniere selected this answer as the correct answer

Comments
Dr. Hans-Joachim Pross commented Aug 02 '10, 8:12 a.m. | edited Oct 05 '17, 11:25 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER

For those who are interested too:
Here is the link to the Work Item

One other answer



permanent link
Dr. Hans-Joachim Pross (1.1k4258) | answered Aug 10 '10, 12:06 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Are there any work arounds known? Any hint is welcome...

I have heard about a SVN plugin TAM TAM.
With SVN it should be possible, to load all files as read only files on your local machine. When "Checking Out" a file, the TAM TAM plugin checks, if the file is locked. If locked, no Check Out. If not locked, the file attributes are changed to write.

Would it be possible, to create a similar work around for RTC? Are the extension points available, to handle this?

(In my case, we want to avoid Rhapsody model merges.)

Comments
Geoffrey Clemm commented Aug 10 '10, 4:14 p.m. | edited Oct 05 '17, 11:27 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

What you describe is effectively what would be done to implement work
item 89703. So this isn't a workaround, but rather is the
implementation of that request(:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.