Peter Cooper Jr. on Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:28:05 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Proposal: you know you want 'em

"Chuck Adams" <cja987@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I would SO much rather see all actions within a single forum post be
> implicitly transactional unless otherwise specified.  If I'm going to
> write proposals in pseudocode, I don't want it to be SQL.

I suppose that's another possibility, but transactions seemed odd
enough that when I first introduced them that I figured I'd make their
use explicit. But I wouldn't mind somebody proping to change that to
be implicit, as long as there's a way to specify that you're okay with
some parts working without others.

And you don't need to use SQL, as long as the start and end of your
transaction is clear. For instance, a statement as the top of your
message saying "The rest of the message is one transaction" would
suffice, I'm pretty sure. I just used SQL since that's what inspired
me to think transactions could be useful.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list