Ed Leafe wrote: > You are looking at things backwards. It's up to you to convince me > or Paul that the change you want is worthwhile; it's not my job to > stop what I'm working on and convince you of anything. > > You mention that things aren't working, but fail to explain what > that means. Then you propose a wide-ranging solution to a problem > that nobody buy you has a clue about, and then get upset when you are > asked to follow the same steps asked of everyone else who reports a > problem.
Ok, in the future i will try harder to convince you although english isn't my first language which makes it very tedious. I think it would be better to store the connection as transaction owner in dApp (instead of the bizobj as it is now). There may be situations where there is a need for more than one connection to the same database. In order to be able to change this in the future: May i add wrappers for begin/commit/rollback to dBizobj in order to allow easier coding for explicit transaction handling and to hide the implementation details of your approach to store the bizobj instead of the connection as transaction owner in dApp? Uwe _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/dabo-users/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
