Onur Gungor wrote: [...] > > But I think that the situation is not that clear. I don't know a single > model to have a transaction open and be safe after.
That sentence is unclear, but I think you're saying that the transaction doesn't fit neatly into any one model. Right? If so, then don't worry: it doesn't have to. Transactions affect the whole DB connection, not just one table. If you need to create a separate class to house a multitable transaction, you can do that, but there's no need to make that class inherit from ActiveRecord or give it a DB table. > > So you might be right if I had a design which kept that in mind right > from the beginning. If your code is telling you that it needs to be refactored, then refactor it instead of kludging around it! > But -at least as a workaround- I need something like > that. Take the time to do it right if possible rather than relying on workarounds. > > A moment ago, I found this: > > http://kseebaldt.blogspot.com/2007/11/synchronizing-using-active-record.html > > This is pretty much the functionality I require. > > I think I will use this. I'll look at that. But if that comes from November 2007 as the URL implies, it is liable to be out of date: I believe the current Rails version at that time was 1.2.6. > > Didn't anybody require anything like this? > > Thanks > Onur Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
