From: David Heinemeier Hansson <david@...>
Date: 2004-06-10T04:30:27+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Active Record 0.8.3: Modules, mapping, and transactions

> David, I'm curious about this design decision.  I went the exact 
> opposite
> direction with transactions in Kansas.  Regardless of whether 
> transactions
> are implemented at the DBD layer or by the database, transactions are 
> always
> implemented at the object level.  I find it interesting that you went 
> the
> other way, and am curious about the reasoning behind it?

Oh, this was referring to database transactions. Before, if you 
attempted to create a database transaction block for MyISAM tables, it 
would bork. Now it'll just ignore MySQL's complaints.

The object transactions are separate from this and require that you 
name the objects going into that with the transaction call.

> Thanks.  Active Record looks like it is shaping up nicely!

Thank you..
--
David Heinemeier Hansson,
http://www.instiki.org/      -- A No-Step-Three Wiki in Ruby
http://www.basecamphq.com/   -- Web-based Project Management
http://www.loudthinking.com/ -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.nextangle.com/    -- Development & Consulting Services