As it is, there is only one way to signal "success"--to return rows affected = 1. This can only be done via a single-row action command. Having another mechanism would permit developers to have more sophisticated update logic and still have a way to signal success.
It also gives your code the ability to indicate whether some other condition has caused the update to fail. There are lots of reasons other than concurrency that can make an update fail. It would be nice to be able to differentiate between these issues. It would be nice to be able to pass back an exception code to the handler to let the client deal intelligently with the exception.
It also gives your code the ability to indicate whether some other condition has caused the update to fail. There are lots of reasons other than concurrency that can make an update fail. It would be nice to be able to differentiate between these issues. It would be nice to be able to pass back an exception code to the handler to let the client deal intelligently with the exception.
Leave a comment