Niclas Hedhman wrote: > But you are also describing 'inconsequential semantics', are you not? > Or, in my above example, anything "read" in a child UoW (child1.read > E1) would also need to be 'written' into the parent UoW in the > child.complete(), for ConcurrentModification checks, but at the same > time be marked as 'not modified'.
From the point of view of the parent UoW the state *is* modified, isn't it? The nested UoW is just a way to do lots of stuff which could be aborted, but it could just as well have been done in the parent. And if it had been, then it would have been considered "modified", and would have to be complete()'d to the parent when all is done. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
