Hello,
I see in hibernate 3 changelog
introduced unsaved-value="undefined", the default for "assigned" ids and <composite-id>, which forces Hibernate to hit the db

Is it mean that hibernate do lock automatic when exists legacy client (performance isn't important)

regards

1) No, Hibernate will first check version/timestamp properties and Interceptors, as always

2) I don't think this is related to locking and legacy databases? Do you really mean read locks because of select-before-update with saveOrUpdate() (with detached objects, thats were you would consider setting an unsaved-value)?

Christian,
I don't understand all, but I want update database with hibernate and another non hibernate client
Option 1 is session for application antipattern and lock upgrade. Is there another option ?

regards
Haris Peco

No, option one is "Application Transaction implementation using Long Session, with interceptors and possibly thread local's".

In this case, if you can't update the database schema (and put in a version or timestamp column), you should use optimistic-lock="all" on your class mappings, telling Hibernate to compare "all fields" of old and new rows to check for concurrent updates.

Another application accessing the same tables concurrently would usually implement the same strategy (if it doesn't have an optimistic "last commit wins" strategy).

Christian,
Where is description "Application Transaction implementation using Long Session, with interceptors and possibly thread local's"
I have Hibernate in Action and reference documentation

Another client (application) use lock for update (one connection for application) - for instance,
sqlplus in oracle do update direct

Thanks

That is called pessimistic locking and something completely different. You are looking for chapters 4 and 8 in HiA, please read them several times ;)