On Jun 11, 11:16 pm, "Henrik Feldt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, on the development list. Castle-project-devel
Cannot find this anywhere, very strange.
It's very difficult to understand your patch because resharper made
quite a mess with it. I seems it reordered every member of every
class, so it is impossible to see what has changed. I would be
surprised, if the path was accepted that way...
Right now I am a bit inclined to have nhibernate leak towards my
controllers and leave the repository pattern to gain access to
sessions and transactions...
quite a bit of work, but could be done incrementally.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
>
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Limpens
> Sent: den 12 juni 2009 00:11
> To: Castle Project Users
> Subject: Re: Troubles with Automatic Transaction Facility (or something
> completely different)
>
> On 11 Jun., 01:21, "Henrik Feldt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not quite. If you apply the patch I sent to the mailing list for the
> > transactions a few days/weeks ago, you can decorate your method with
> > [InjectTransaction] and have a parameter: "ITransaction tx" which then
> > will have a method: "SetRollbackOnly()" which you can use to roll the
> > transaction back.
>
> Interesting! Are you sure it was _this_ list? I could not find such a post
> (I searched the group for 'InjectTransaction'...)
>
> > (Also only getting the innermost exception instead of the full
> > stack-trace can probably cause you some trouble in the future when you
> > don't know what code-path the thing went down.)
>
> In 99% of the cases this is where I get the relevant info from (and the
> stack usually shows where it came from). But you are right, this can go the
> wrong way...
>
> > In your case though, you have _a lot_ of things going on in your
> > controller and you should definitely move it to a few domain and
> > application services to maintain separation of concerns. That way you
> > can also expose them as web services should you need to.
>
> Yip, this is the one super big method I am having in this site. But actually
> it is already consuming a few services to construct an Order object. This is
> a complicated process, but I doubt it would be less complicated, if I put it
> into several methods without reuse. To me, this would be a smell just as
> well...
>
> > May I ask how come you're returning view datas from your controller?
> > Which view engine is that?
>
> I created a custom return binder, that puts the returned object into
> PropertyBag["viewData"]. Just a few lines of code, but I hardly address
> PropertyBag + strings that way. On view side I just go $
> {viewData.SomeProperty}. The action needs the attribute
> [return:PropertyBagReturnBinder]
>
> using System;
> using Castle.MonoRail.Framework;
>
> namespace ProjectBase.Utils
> {
> [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.ReturnValue, AllowMultiple
> = false, Inherited = false)]
> public class PropertyBagReturnBinderAttribute : Attribute,
> IReturnBinder
> {
> public void Bind(IEngineContext context, IController
> controller, IControllerContext controllerContext, Type returnType, object
> returnValue)
> {
> context.CurrentControllerContext.PropertyBag
> [Name] = returnValue;
> }
>
> private string name = "viewData";
> public string Name
> {
> get { return name; }
> set { name = value; }
> }
> }
> }
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jan
>
> > Cheers,
> > Henrik
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
>
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan
> > Limpens
> > Sent: den 10 juni 2009 22:43
> > To: Castle Project Users
> > Subject: Re: Troubles with Automatic Transaction Facility (or
> > something completely different)
>
> > > Catching all exceptions will make the transaction try to commit.
>
> > So the only way to stop a transaction from committing would be to
> > actively throw an exception and present it to the user as a rescue? I
> > thought, the transaction would have been rolled back, before the
> > exception was thrown to me.
> > I am quite in a bit of trouble, if this is as you say...
>
> > > Could you send a small .sln with a repro?
> > I will try...
>
> > > You're kind of eating the exceptions in a lot of places... Have you
> > > tried letting the exception bubble out of the action instead, using
> > > a [HandleError] page?
>
> > Actually I am catching my exceptions at the last possible instance, at
> > the controller, where I am actually in the position to do something
> > about it, if at least informing my users or redirecting or trying some
> > different approach.
>
> > Most of the transaction intensive actions (form post actions) use
> > JSONReturnBinder. I use a defined Json format to inform my users of
> > possible errors. Dunno if I can use a [HandleError] page (== rescue??)
> here.
>
> > In this special case everything goes fine database wise. The
> > transaction _should_ commit, but it does not due to a failure in a
> > totally different service.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > Jan
>
>
>
> file_tx_delta.rar
> 29KViewDownload
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
