just a reminder, silence == consent. i am planning to move forward with development on this.
-- Allen On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 13:25, Allen Gilliland wrote: > Okay, here is a more flushed out proposal of what I think should be done ... > > http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_BackendRefactorings > > Note that the driving force behind these changes is to 1) prevent direct > access to the PersistenceStrategy from outside the business layer and 2) > limit persistence logic (like transaction details) to the business layer. > > I think those are very appropriate goals to have for the architecture of our > code. > > -- Allen > > > On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 10:10, Anil Gangolli wrote: > > Anil Gangolli wrote: > > > > > > Actually, you want those two queries to be in one transaction, not > > > two; otherwise they can see inconsistent state if there is another > > > transaction committed between the two. > > > > > Red herring on my part. Not really a new issue for us though since we > > are typically using default READ_COMMITTED isolation anyway. > > > > --a. > > >
