On 10/22/07, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Muldis DB also has separate start|commit|rollback_trans() methods
> that the Perl application can invoke (but Muldis D stored routines
> can't) whose purpose is to support wider-scope parent-most
> transactions in the application where it isn't practical to put all
> parts of it into a stored routine, such as because interaction with
> non-database systems or users needs to be done between stages.
>
> Based on my understanding, DBIx-Class' separate
> txn_begin|commit|rollback() routines correspond to this, assuming
> they aren't invoked by user code in a txn_do().
>
> To summarize, I recommend for DBIx-Class an emphasis on txn_do() for
> any situation where it would work, which includes executing just
> single operations, and that autocommit=1 should be constant. An
> autocommit=0 can be simulated by just having explicit
> begin/commit/rollback where appropriate.
>
I think ideally we'd like to deprecate and/or eliminate
->txn_{begin,commit,rollback} as well, and basically stick users with
AutoCommit=>1 and txn_do. If we could find some concrete examples of
sane things that can't be done with just txn_do, that would be a good
reason to keep the others around, but I don't think such an example
exists (if you know of one, please speak up). txn_do closures and the
magic of $self->next::can covers just about everything I can think of.
-- Brandon
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
