On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 18:50:28 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: > Sorry for the necro-equine flagellation, but I think STM would have to > support general nesting to be useful. In fact I'd be highly surprised > if the Haskell STM implementation doesn't already support it.
Uh, yeah, that's exactly my point.
> We'll need this, because a "transparent" object persistence layer won't
> want data to mismatch the database in the event of a rollback, as
> Tangram takes some effort to ensure now in Perl 5. So it will be doing
> its own atomic { } stuff that will all "commit" to memory on the
> successful database commit, or undo changes in the event of a rollback.
So what API hooks that can compose like STM gives you do you
propose, for making things roll back when STM gives up and goes to
try the block of code again?
> The end goal is to be able to give the DB layers enough hooks that we
> can say a well written one Just Works™ in the face of atomic { }.
>
> Does that seem relevant to the point you were making?
Yes =)
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: /methinks long and hard, and runs away: neeyah!!!
pgpdx2kqoKejI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
