On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:41:12 -0700, Nathan Dintenfass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sean, you say such nested transactions were "bugs" in your code -- but, I > suspect at least some of those were due to people following good > encapsulation rules
Barney's response is spot on: transactions are business layer concepts so the "bugs" in our code were where we had mixed responsibilities across tiers. Designing transactions into your business model is right up there with designing exceptions into your application - it's not easy but it's very important to get it right. It's all about putting the right responsibilities into the right pieces of code. Nathan, you talked about having to refactor - that's right: you need to separate transactions out from the lower level database interactions. Barney's "dual method" approach solves that quite neatly. Some people feel that such separation is overkill but it's the separation that helps us really understand our applications and makes enhancements easier. Coherence: each thing should do one self-contained task (and do it well). -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
