One user per session block - concurrency handling has a gaping hole

[suhage]

So, AwareIM has a block, right (unless it is Put in Development for the multi-developer mode) - only one user per session. If one user is logged in, no one else may log in. Should work great, right? Not so much.

In my Team of four AwareIM developers, we access AwareIM through three different virtual machines; each virtual machine has AwareIM installed. AwareIM's concurrency controll workes fine in each server - two people logged into the same virtual machine/server cannot use the Configuration Tool at the same time. However, if those two people access the Configuration Tool from separate Virtual Machines, they bypass this concurrency control and can both edit, test, and publish on the same version. If the business space is not put in development, this naturally causes huge issues (I just spent the past day trying to recover a business space version and then another day fixing follow-up bugs because one person published a business space someone else was editing).

Limiting AwareIM to just one server is not an option for us, because we have many Business Spaces and need to be able to work on on separate BS's concurrently. Nor can we assign just one person to work on each BS, as often they are shared efforts, and if one is busy, someone else needs to be able to step in. We can launch practices to limit these occurences, but human users make mistakes; strict procedures for login and development can only do so much. Any system or application should enforce the rules they make, without backdoors, and AwareIM has left this one wide open.

This seems like a pretty big hole in the concurrency handling to me and is a serious problem for AwareIM's success in any enterprise with a similar setup as ours. It's not an easy problem to fix, but i hope it will be prioritized, or it severely limits the usefulness of this LowCode-tool.

[Jaymer]

Are you using the multi-dev "check in", "check out" stuff?

[suhage]

Are you using the multi-dev "check in", "check out" stuff?

No, we did not - we turned it on now though, and it's gonna stay on. Which should fix our concurrency problems, but doesn't close AwareIM's open back door for other people using AwareIM...