> I think it's this slight confusion that worries me.... if it could > have two possible interpretations, then I would hope that the less > dangerous one would be implemented? > > I'd certainly prefer to find out that the reason my model wasn't being > destroyed was that I can't COMMIT a transaction with a 'return', than > to discover that my data is going missing because I was using break to > drop outs of a transaction early?
It's way too risky for rails to try and guess what your intentions are. That way lies madness You can do this at present by raising an exception to roll back the transaction, but you then have to rescue it so at present you have to do begin transaction do @item.save raise SomethingError.new end rescue SomethingError=>se end if we could simplify that to transaction do @item.save raise ActiveRecord::RollbackTransaction.new end Life would be much easier for all concerned Alternatively in edge you can currently rollback the transaction explicitly. http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/6196 That API isn't necessarily the final one, but it would certainly be nice to have an exception you can raise to roll back the transaction without necessarily having to rescue it explicitly. -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
