From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-08-28T20:52:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Distributed Object Container

On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 04:15, Philipp Meier wrote:
> I remember your post but already made a db persistence mixin myself.
> What I actually want goes a little further: transactions not tied to a
> db. That's why i used the example above, a cart usually is held in
> memory and not in a db. Or think of atomic transactions spanning a db
> and files or a printer (mark bill as printed in db if and only if it's
> succesfully printed).

ah, i see. hmm...that's an intersting notion. and i think i know how to
do it! maybe you have already done it, but, simply store the binding
(see kernel#binding) at the start of the transaction, upon an error you
can reinstigate(?) the stored binding. simple, yes?. of course db
transactions would take care of the db side of it.

thanks for this. it's exactly what i need to add to GUtopIa! (not to
mention a few other potential projects) killer!

~transami