For worse I'd say because using SQLAlchemy directly works just fine and
as expected, without the need to reload the data after failed session.
Is there any benefit of the Transaction in Pyramid if all I'm using is
it for is SQLAlchemy (and don't need transaction abstraction)? In fact
I'm only using it because pyramid_routesalchemy template uses it by default.
Aside to commit veto in the middleware, am I losing anything if I remove
pyramid_tm altogether and use SQLAlchemy directly? Yes, I know I'll have
to manually commit at the end of each request or write my own middleware...
Thanks! ;)
.oO V Oo.
On 11/14/2011 07:50 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 13:41 +0100, Vlad K. wrote:
Here:
https://gist.github.com/1363860
This simple test case works just fine, meaning the problem is somewhere
in my application. As you can see from the code, I tried both a
"standalone" test and through Pyramid WSGI chain checking if pyramid_tm
middleware possibly borks something somewhere, but both cases worked fine.
I think the issue here is that (for better or worse), calling
transaction.commit() causes the session to be closed, which detaches the
objects obtained from that session. The following iteration on your
script actually completes (note that I requery for "tm" after "second
pass")....
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
