Need an appropriate link on the Lock discussion

[Manoj Gundawar]

Hi,
Again, I know this topic has been discussed more than any other topic in this forum. When I go thru all that discussion, I just get bogged down by the enormity and depth of it and get diverted too
So I have a very straight question and I will be glad to get simple answer or link to that.
Question: Is it necessary (or must as per SUN) to call the LOCK/UNLCOK methods on the client side, if the LOCK method returns lockCookie??
Thanks for help.
Manoj
[ October 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jmannu gundawar ]

[Jim Yingst]

Some of us believe it's "required" in the sense that the specification seems to require it, however it appears that many people have gotten good scores without doing this. So it may be a "requirement" that Sun does not enforce (perhaps because their phrasing of the requirement was a little too vague). Personally I think you should all the lock() method from the client side. However if you want to do it on the server, that's OK too, almost certainly. We can't really give a more definite answer than that.

[Andrew Monkhouse]

Hi Manoj,
I guess you are referring to the topic "Should lock methods be callable by the client".
You really should try and read right through it and make up your own mind - I don't think that there are any Sun examiner's on this forum who could give you a definitive answer.
I (and others) believe that the cookies in particular are a strong indicator that Sun would like to see the client call the lock() method.
However I agree that this is not a "must" requirement, and that my interpretation is just that - an interpretation of vague requirements that could be interpreted different ways. So you should not fail if you don't do it.
Regards, Andrew

[Manoj Gundawar]

Thanks Jim and Andrew,
You guys are always there for help! Just like Southern CA Firefighters you are QueryFighters!
Thanks again. I have already gone thru that non-ending thread, but just wanted to know if it is "MUST" as per SUN's definition. But as you have said that many have passed without this, it reassures me that it is not must.
And Andrew, I know what "Iacomus Iuvencissimus" means. My best guess, it means "Jim Yingst" cast into Latin.

Thanks,
Manoj