[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14602692#comment-14602692
]
stephen mallette commented on TINKERPOP3-749:
---------------------------------------------
I think I'd rather keep the transaction methods grouped together on the
{{Transaction}} itself. Having said that, most people don't understand the
notion of a threaded transaction in the first place so I suppose I see your
point in the confusion that could brew. Rather than move it to {{{Graph}} could
we accomplish the same thing by renaming {{create()}}? maybe it's:
{{tx().newThreadedTx()}} or {{tx().createThreadedTx()}} - to me that doesn't
imply a "child". something along those lines maybe?
> Consider moving Transaction.create() on to Graph.createTx()
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP3-749
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-749
> Project: TinkerPop 3
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Bryn Cooke
> Priority: Minor
>
> Currently if you want to create a thread independent transaction you do:
> Transaction t = g.tx(); //My current transaction.
> Graph tg = t.create(); //Creating a new transaction.
> I know this may seem petty, but to me it says that I am creating a new
> transaction that is a child of the Transaction obtained via tx().
> Does this mean that if do:
> t.commit();
> it will commit all spawned transactions?
> Just thinking it would be nicer to have Graph.createTx() in addition to
> Graph.tx() that way it doesn't look like there is any hierarchy of
> transactions.
> Fully understand if others don't see it that way though.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
