From: Kirk Haines <khaines@...>
Date: 2004-06-10T04:46:20+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Active Record 0.8.3: Modules, mapping, and transactions

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 04:30:27 +0900, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote

> 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.

Ah!  I follow you.

Was the decision to do it that way mainly to make it easy to just use 
Transaction::Simple?

To my mind, if one wants to perform a transaction, it is safer to just have 
everything that could be under the transaction under it.  I look at it as a 
parallel structure sort of thing.  At the database level, a transaction is a 
transaction for everything.  So, at the object level, when a transaction is 
entered, all of the objects are part of that transaction.  There is also a 
database transaction that is running below that at the same time.  That way, 
if one wants to directly write some SQL and bypass the normal object methods 
of doing things, that SQL still executes within the context of the 
transaction.

Is there a benefit to being able to pick and choose which objects are part 
of the transaction and which are not that I am being too dense to see right 
now?  What are your thoughts?


Thanks,

Kirk