On 4/9/07, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Case 3 seems completely broken because it means
> code inside a transaction block is no longer guaranteed to be atomic.
Agree. Although it is exactly what happens now (except that there is
no new transaction).
I've never used explicit rollback() inside business logic in any
language that has exceptions, for that very reason (atomicity creates
the "rollback is exception" paradigm).
If we can disregard breaking any existing code that goes like:
transaction do |trx|
...
if there_is_a_problem
trx.rollback!
log 'Oops!'
# other interesting side effects
end
end
then I'll happily live with (1).
Alex
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
