想法2更好。除了您需要对挂起的更改进行一些验证这一事实之外。因此，无论何时修改实体，您都需要首先进行验证。如果该实体存在一些挂起的更改，那么它现在将取决于最终用户来解决冲突，他可能会选择覆盖旧的挂起的更改。最终它只会覆盖以 XML 形式存储的挂起的更改。 或者您可能不会覆盖旧版本，并且可以有两个版本的挂起更改，然后将取决于业务用户来最终确定哪一个更好。因此在这种情况下，您可以以 XML 的形式获得挂起更改，例如：
idea 2 is better. Except the fact that you need to make some validation for the pending changes.So where ever an entity is being modified you need to first validate.If there exists some pending changes for this entity then it will now depend on the end user to resolve the conflict and he might choose to overwrite the old pending changes.In the end it will just over writing the pending changes, which is stored in the form of XML. Or you might not over write the old one and can have two version of pending changes and then it will depend on the business user to finalize which one is better.So in this case you can have the pending changes in the form of XML like :
发布评论
评论（1）
想法2更好。除了您需要对挂起的更改进行一些验证这一事实之外。因此，无论何时修改实体，您都需要首先进行验证。如果该实体存在一些挂起的更改，那么它现在将取决于最终用户来解决冲突，他可能会选择覆盖旧的挂起的更改。最终它只会覆盖以 XML 形式存储的挂起的更改。
或者您可能不会覆盖旧版本，并且可以有两个版本的挂起更改，然后将取决于业务用户来最终确定哪一个更好。因此在这种情况下，您可以以 XML 的形式获得挂起更改，例如：
idea 2 is better. Except the fact that you need to make some validation for the pending changes.So where ever an entity is being modified you need to first validate.If there exists some pending changes for this entity then it will now depend on the end user to resolve the conflict and he might choose to overwrite the old pending changes.In the end it will just over writing the pending changes, which is stored in the form of XML.
Or you might not over write the old one and can have two version of pending changes and then it will depend on the business user to finalize which one is better.So in this case you can have the pending changes in the form of XML like :