On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Shawn Wilsher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/4/2010 7:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > >> c) require an explicit transaction always, along the lines Nikunj's >> original proposal had it. We would move most methods from database to >> transaction (except a few properties such as version and such, which it may >> still be ok to handle implicitly from the transactions perspective). This >> eliminates this whole problem altogether at the cost of an extra step >> required always. >> > I'm rather loath about adding more asynchronous steps to do even the most > simplest of tasks here. What about only doing this for cursor operations > only? Basically, openCursor would be on the transaction object instead of > on the database object. > On the other hand, a lot of even the most basic tasks probably should be done within a transaction. But if the easiest way to do something is to just run it outside of a transaction, I'm guessing a good portion of users (including tutorial websites, people giving advice on forums, etc) will just do it that way. Mandating transactions forces users to be cognizant of them. Maybe that's a good thing... J
