2010/10/6 Henry Conceição <[email protected]>: > Aren't we mixing up things here? If someone wants a readonly > nhibernate session, why he would be achieving that set a tx = > readonly?
The concept of read only transactions already exists. See http://www.bing.com/search?q=readonly+transactions&form=OSDSRC > - it assumes that the transaction is only been using the open and > close the nhibernate session. If true, it should has a orthogonal and > decoupled way to doing it Not sure where you're seeing this assumption ? > - the transaction doesn't a exposes a clearly read-only contract. In this point I agree, but not sure how valuable it is to break our api in order to support this. But yeah, ideas are welcomed. > so > other resources probably will be commited or rolledback. So, we can > scenarios like: "yeahh, it's a readonly tx, but only for nhibernate. > the other resources (like msmq) doesn't support this concept so they > are committed anyways". Right. Still, a resource can opt to no implement readonly semantics, and the same hazards will be true. -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
