On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 08:34:36AM -0800, Dean Arnold wrote: > > Er, is this giving users enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot ? > > Since &$coderef can contain *any* code, might users be (mis)led to believe > that anything they do in the coderef will get "rolled back" on any error ?
I doubt it but I never cease to be amazed by what users think [*cough* DBI->state *cough* :-] > While it would be neat to have such a capability (ie, adding transaction > monitor capability to DBI), in this present form, the docs will need to be very > explicit about > what its capabilities really are (Bold and UPPERCASE THE POD DESCRIPTION). > OTOH, might a partial xaction monitor behavior be possible by the DBI > layer flagging that its "acting as xaction monitor", and then tracking every > database handle that gets used within the $coderef, and applying the > rollback/commit to *all* such handles ? It ain't 2PC, but its a start. That's a whole different can of works I don't even want to think about right now as I'm up to my eyes in worms already. But my gut feel is I don't want to go there at all without doing 2PC properly via XA APIs. > Overthinking again, Yes :) Tim.
