Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #2227, comment 27


Ignore:
Timestamp:
04/08/2011 04:32:37 AM (4 years ago)
Author:
etianen
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #2227, comment 27

    initial v1  
    1 I agree that nested calls to transaction management commands should transparent start using savepoints. It seems like the obvious abstraction layer.
     1I agree that nested calls to transaction management commands should transparently start using savepoints. It seems like the obvious abstraction layer.
    22
    33However, for backends which do not support savepoints, what would the fallback be? The only thing I can think of is to check for nesting and only allow transactions to commit in the outer nested block. This means that different backends will behave very differently, massively breaking the abstraction.
    44
    5 For backwards compatibility, the current transaction handling methods will probably have to stay, as they provide a 'broken', yet consistent way of handling transactions between backends. There are workarounds for core framework features, such as #15694. However, a new set of decorators with a slightly different API could be provided in parallel, with a signature something like this:
     5For backwards compatibility, the current transaction handling methods will probably have to stay, as they provide a 'broken', yet consistent way of handling transactions between backends. There are workarounds for core framework features, such as #15694.
     6
     7However, a new set of decorators with a slightly different API could be provided in parallel, with a signature something like this:
    68
    79{{{
Back to Top