So, after a TSQLTransaction.Commit should I calll a TSQLTransaction.EndTransaction?
I think should be friendly and usefull if TSQLTransaction.Action works as a default action for transaction managing. If you set it as <i>caNone</i> you * MUST * manage it manually. But, I know that this modification should break a lot of past projects..... William de Oliveira Ferreira Programador Web/Desktop > (32) 8412 1897 - Whatsapp > Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:57:23 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lazarus] SQLDB: how to use TSQLTransaction > > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, William Ferreira wrote: > > > > > > > - An option to TSQLTransaction, called stoUseImplicit, which means the > > implicit transaction handling of the engine will be used. > > (SQLDB then simply doesn't start a transaction) > > > > This has the effect that every statement will then be committed at once. > > > > - An option to TSQLQuery called sqoAutoCommit, which will commit each > > statement at once. > > i.e. it calls SQLTranaction.Commit after each command. > > Sorry, I thought that was a mission to TSQLTransaction.Action as it accepts > > some values like caCommitRetaining or caRollback. So, how does this > > property works? > > Action determines what happens if you call EndTransaction, > and that is called when the transaction instance is destroyed. > > Michael. > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Lazarus mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
-- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
