> > Yeah, I'm quite put out by the whole thing. It seems very > > strange to me that CF took a step back from every DMBS I've > > ever used, by making transaction control statements depend > > on eachother, rather than being standalone commands. I > > suppose the tag-based nature of the language demanded it, > > but then to go against that nature and allow standalone tags, > > but only within an existing open/close tag pair seems really > > f***ed up. One or the other, ya know? > > I'm coming into this thread rather late, but if you're > talking about the use > of nested CFTRANSACTION tags, it's my understanding that you > aren't supposed > to have "standalone" CFTRANSACTION tags in any case - each > CFTRANSACTION tag > should always have a closing CFTRANSACTION tag: > > <cftransaction isolation="serializable"> > > ... Some queries ... > > <cftransaction action="commit"/> <!--- note the closing > slash ---> > > ... Some more queries ... > > </cftransaction>
OK, now I've read the whole thread. I think that the underlying issue is that you can't separate CFTRANSACTION tags, so the opening and closing tags always have to be within the same page. That's always been the case, and I don't expect that's changed any with CFMX 6.x. So, separating transactional logic within different CFC methods (which, after all, get compiled into separate Java classes) seems problematic to say the least. I apologize if this isn't directly on point, since I read through the thread pretty quickly. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
