On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:45:20AM +0200, Arthur Bergman wrote: > > Mind blowing work, I am very impressed and feel ready to work on a new > version of PoCo::HTTPD, > > A quick comment is that it seems to lack any transactional > environment/rules, is this intentional?
Sorry, no. Thanks for bringing it up. I've summarized the discussion re: transactions so far and added it to the document. === Transactions === Arthur Bergman noticed that transactions were not mentioned. Torvald Riegel pointed out that transactions would solve many problems: It would be really cool to support transactions. If you have full control of messages, you can do rollback, make snapshots, and other useful things. Ideally, it would be transparent to the component. These features are generally not needed except in the most fanatically robust systems, and they are difficult to implement. They also tend to be performance bottlenecks. Protocols with atomic messages can usually work around the problems that transactions exist to solve. They should tide us over until transactions are worked out. Design goals: Leave hooks for a future transactional system, but don't implement one now. One aspect of this goal is to control even internal access to a component. We cannot take snapshots of a component or roll back its state unless we can control access to its internal data. This basically requires ALL access to $self to go through accessors. -- Rocco Caputo / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / poe.perl.org / poe.sf.net
