:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
While the same OS allows spaces in passwords...
-Original Message-
From: Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2005 9:21
To: CF
and I believe that as I refactor the site and continue
to develop it that I'll be able to define much MORE
elegant ways of doing the same thing in CF. Starting
with refining the database design... because the
tbl_login+tbl_{user_type} did NOT work out as well
as I'd hoped. Most annoying.
. | Web Developer
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Password Rules - Was: RE: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
For usernames, I usually only allow alphanumerics, constrain the length,
and treat
allows spaces in passwords...
-Original Message-
From: Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2005 9:21
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
[snip]
There are rules for passwords, and no spaces be one of mine. I figure
That makes sense...
I think I (and probably others) end up with a story that goes once
upon a time, back in the day, I tried that and I couldn't get it to
work and stick with it, never thinking about the fact that it was 3
or 4 years ago on a substantially different platform. It's not until a
hi there...
i have this section of code... that is enrobed in a cftransaction block
that somehow today, was caught in a race condition... meaning...
i have two records with the same acctNo, and there should only
be one!
my first thought, now that i look over the code... would it be better
no trimmin or queryparams!! shame on u !
From: Tony Weeg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:04 PM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
hi there...
i have this section of code... that is enrobed
@houseoffusion.com
Subject: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
hi there...
i have this section of code... that is enrobed in a cftransaction block
that somehow today, was caught in a race condition... meaning...
i have two records with the same acctNo, and there should only
be one!
my first
everything must be trimmed!!! just a good way to live life ;)
From: Tony Weeg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:55 AM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
its an internal app, that has
AM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
its an internal app, that has no chance of mal intent
and not to mention i havent spent a minute cleaning up the code
i usually code cfqueryparams after i get EVERYTHING working... as its
quicker for me
No, ... ofcourse not. Or didn't you notice those 100 mails in the
support mailbox where customers complain about their spaces being
removed when they enter data.
Micha Schopman
Project Manager
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoort
yup ;)
From: Tony Weeg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:42 AM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: cftransaction... it wasnt safe?
i agree in certain labial situations but ALWAYS?
tw
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:59:02 -0500
Do session variables still need to be locked inside of
cftransaction? Or should cflock be avoided inside cftransaction?
Session variables in CFMX need to be locked if you might have more than one
request changing values in the same session variables at the same time.
Since session variables
If I have a block of code that is going to call several queries, and I have
placed the queries into functions of a CFC, can I wrap these calls into a
single transaction?
Basically I will have something like this.
!--- Update several related tables ---
cftransaction
cfinvoke
I think you have to explictly state a rollback, by default the transaction
tag only does locking I think.
cftransaction action=ROLLBACK
-Original Message-
From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:18 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Is this cftransaction
No, by default it will rollback if one fails
-Original Message-
From: gabriel l smallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 November 2004 17:25
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Is this cftransaction going to work?
I think you have to explictly state a rollback, by default the
transaction
I think you have to explicitly state a rollback, by default the transaction tag
only does locking I think.
cftransaction action=ROLLBACK
Ok, but my basic question was would this work, even though the transaction is
at a different layer then the queries?
--
Ian Skinner
Web
to explicitly state a rollback, by default the
transaction tag only does locking I think.
cftransaction action=ROLLBACK
Ok, but my basic question was would this work, even though the
transaction is at a different layer then the queries?
--
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
.
-Original Message-
From: Pascal Peters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 November 2004 16:29
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Is this cftransaction going to work?
No, by default it will rollback if one fails
-Original Message-
From: gabriel l smallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23
In CFMX 6.1, CFTRANSACTION will apply to CFC calls. This is not
true in CFMX 6.0. As always, the queries must all be to the same
datasource.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:33:29 -0800, Ian Skinner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you have to explicitly state a rollback, by default the transaction
Pascal Peters wrote:
No, by default it will rollback if one fails
The database will rolback if an unrecoverable error occurs. Which
errors are unrecoverable is implementation defined (check your
database manual).
CF will rollback if an exception is thrown that is not handled
through a
Yes, it should work in my experience.
-Original Message-
From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Is this cftransaction going to work?
I think you have to explicitly state a rollback, by default the transaction
tag
by default the isolation is serializable.
you can also specify to read_committed for more strict rules.
Serializable is stricter than read_committed.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
.
In my experience, this has not been the case. By default, if any query fails
within the CFTRANSACTION, all other queries using the same connection
information (datasource, username, password, etc) will be rolled back.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax
/cfcase
cfcase value=server2
cfset REQUEST.thisDSN = productionDS
/cfcase
/cfswitch
then in a page in the application, i have some transaction processing
cftransaction
cfquery name=1 datasource=#REQUEST.thisDSN#
update foo set foo = bar where bar = foo
/cfquery
cfquery name=2
(well that is possibly a little drastic)
cfset request.transactionEnabled = true
cftransaction
all sorts of cfc/custom tags etc etc
/cftransaction
cfset request.transactionEnabled = false
Elliot
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings
when i run the query like this its working fine
cfquery datasource=one name=one
insert statment
cfquery
cfquery datasource=two name=rwo
insert statment
cfquery
but when i put in transcation i got the error
CFTRANSACTION
cfquery datasource=one name=one
insert statment
cfquery
cfquery
thks for your response,i think its possible in java
is it not possible to have implement tow phase commit in Coldfusion
To perform distributed transactions with two-phase commits, you need some
specific piece of software, a distributed transaction coordinator, that can
do this for you. For
Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFTRANSACTION
thks for your response,i think its possible in java
is it not possible to have implement tow phase commit in Coldfusion
To perform distributed transactions
be possible to have a transaction that covers both dbs, as long as the same connection is used for both
I havent checked using cftransaction, although I have done something similar within a stored procedure with serializable isolation, which may be worth exploring.
You don't seem to have specified
Hi All
is it possible to have one CFTRANSACTION for multiple datasource
i write the follwing code
CFTRANSACTION
cfquery datasource=one name=one
insert statment
cfquery
cfquery datasource=two name=rwo
insert statment
cfquery
/CFTRANSACTION
i verify the connection in cf admin ,but when i
No, you can only have one datasource per CFTRANSACTION.
Would be nice, but it isn't possible.
Paul Giesenhagen
QuillDesign
417-885-1375
http://www.quilldesign.com
- Original Message -
From: vishnu prasad
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:45 PM
Subject: CFTRANSACTION
Hi Paul
thks for your response,i think its possible in java
is it not possible to have implement tow phase commit in Coldfusion
No, you can only have one datasource per CFTRANSACTION.
Would be nice, but it isn't possible.
Paul Giesenhagen
QuillDesign
417-885-1375
http
16, 2004 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: CFTRANSACTION
Hi Paul
thks for your response,i think its possible in java
is it not possible to have implement tow phase commit in Coldfusion
No, you can only have one datasource per CFTRANSACTION.
Would be nice, but it isn't possible.
Paul Giesenhagen
when i run the query like this its working fine
cfquery datasource=one name=one
insert statment
cfquery
cfquery datasource=two name=rwo
insert statment
cfquery
but when i put in transcation i got the error
CFTRANSACTION
cfquery datasource=one name=one
insert statment
cfquery
cfquery
- Original Message -
From: vishnu prasad
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: CFTRANSACTION
when i run the query like this its working fine
cfquery datasource=one name=one
insert statment
cfquery
cfquery datasource=two name=rwo
insert statment
cfquery
Also, it may help in these situations to think of cftransaction as a
kind of DB-based CFLOCK
Transactions, depending on the isolation level, may need to lock the db
(either on a row or table basis) to stop any other process making a
change while the transaction completes. It's worth bearing
Wouldn't the answer to this be akin to the standard advice of putting
cfoutputs *outside* of a cfloop?In the given example, there is
nothing meaningful going on in the loop other than stuff that needs a
cftransaction applied to it.Wouldn't applying and reapplying such a
block repeatedly
It depends on whether the entire process needs to be atomic or just each
iteration, how many iterations there are, and what other processes might
need to access the database while it's running.
The overall execution time will certianly be greater if the CFTRANSACTION
tags are inside the CFLOOP
Which is better and why?
cfloop query=whatever
cftransaction
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
/cftransaction
/cfloop
Vs.
cftransaction
cfloop query=whatever
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: cftransaction inside or outside cfloops?
Which is better and why?
cfloop query=whatever
cftransaction
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
cfqueryinsert/cfquery
cfqueryinsert
Steve,
It depends more on what youre doing, than on a Best Practice concept.
If you're inserting into 3 tables, in a Loop, of X times, where if the
loop fails on any iteration, you'd want to roll back the entire
transaction, you'd surround the loop with the cftransaction,
But if you can
Steve,
Depends on what effect you want.For example, if you want ALL the
cfqueries to be processed for your entire loop or NONE of them processed
(for example if one fails), then you would want to put the
cftransaction outside the loop.However, if you want each record of
'whatever
Hi all,
I'm using ColdFusion MX and Access 2000. I have a strange error that ocurrs
with CF talking to the Access database using CFTRANSACTION. What I'm doing
is insert a record to the Access table and then get the autonumber value in
the Respondent field. I insert with INSERT (duh) and I get
Roberto Perez said:
I'm using ColdFusion MX and Access 2000. I have a strange error that
ocurrswith CF talking to the Access database using CFTRANSACTION.
What I'm doingis insert a record to the Access table and then get
the autonumber value inthe Respondent field. I insert with INSERT
(duh
At 05:10 PM 4/10/04, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
DreamWeaver errors mean very little. Debug in a normal browser and
look at the CF errors.
Thanks for a prompt response. I forgot to mention that the errors ocur in
DreamWeaver, I never get an error when I open the page and submit a form.
VALUES (
Roberto Perez said:
At 05:10 PM 4/10/04, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
VALUES (
cfqueryparam cfsqltype=cf_sql_varchar
value=#FORM.Consent# null=#YesNoFormat(not
Len(FORM.Consent))#,
cfqueryparam cfsqltype=cf_sql_varchar
value=#FORM.AccessCode# null=#YesNoFormat(not
Len(FORM.AccessCode))#,
!--- Make
Has anyone seen this?
The root cause of this exception was: java.sql.SQLException:
[Macromedia][Oracle JDBC Driver]Not in local manual transaction mode..
Any info appreciated, thx!
Stace
table width=800 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=10 border=0tr bgcolor=BDBDBDtd valign=top width=400font
Hi,
I am getting the following error. The code worked before and was doing some
testing, so not sure why I get this error
Database The root cause of this exception was: java.sql.SQLException:
[Macromedia][Oracle JDBC Driver]Not in local manual transaction mode
I am thinking of restarting the
It is possible, but I do not recommend.
-Original Message-
From: Spectrum Web [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: maandag 2 februari 2004 10:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:cftransaction HELP Please...
Right?? It's possible to insert another CF scripts inside
cftransaction tags? Do you
Why? Performance loss? Security?
- Original Message -
From: Pascal Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:14:18 +0100
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: cftransaction HELP Please...
It is possible, but I do not recommend.
-Original Message-
From: Spectrum
Mainly performance loss, you don't want to hold a 'lock' on DB for too long.
Keep anything inside cftransaction tag to the minimum, especially don't
print long data results to the screen, or worse, do IO operations.
TK
-Original Message-
From: Spectrum WebDesign [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
This is possible. However, you have an error with your cftransaction
tags. They ALWAYS require an end tag.
cfif IsOK
cftransaction action=""
cfelse
cftransaction action = ""
/cfif
-Original Message-
From: Spectrum Web [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: zondag 1
Hi All,
I have a quick question:
I have piece of code below:
CFTRANSACTION
CFQUERY NAME = InsertMain
INSERT INTO tbl_Main (adadadadadadadada)
VALUES (dadadadadadad)
/CFQUERY
CFQUERY NAME = GetID
SELECT MAX ID from tbl_Main
/CFQUERY
/CFTRANSACTION
The question that I have is do I
I have piece of code below:
CFTRANSACTION
CFQUERY NAME = InsertMain
INSERT INTO tbl_Main (adadadadadadadada)
VALUES (dadadadadadad)
/CFQUERY
CFQUERY NAME = GetID
SELECT MAX ID from tbl_Main
/CFQUERY
/CFTRANSACTION
The question that I have is do I also need to include
CFLOCK with this. I
If you're using SQL Server 2000, on the other
hand, this may not be sufficient, since SQL Server 2000 can lock individual
records. So, in that case, you'd want to specify a stricter isolation level,
such as serializable. You can do this using the ISOLATION attribute of
CFTRANSACTION
Actually, you
for
locking hints in SQL Server, although I use them infrequently enough that I
could be wrong about that.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but serializable is the default
setting for cftransaction tag.
As far as I can tell, this is wrong. The default value is unspecified by CF,
and is dependent on your
Actually, you can only suggest isolation levels to DB, the DB
is the one that sets isolation levels and does what it think
is the best thing.
While I imagine this could be true for some database, it certainly isn't
true for either SQL Server or Oracle. I don't even think it's true for
Some locking hits are row based:
SELECT column
FROM table WITH (ROWLOCK).
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 24, 2003 10:23 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
Actually, you can only suggest isolation levels to DB, the DB
No, serializable is not the default level.Automatically serializing
transactions would be a huge performance killer.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 24, 2003 9:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
If you're using SQL Server
, 2003 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
I have piece of code below:
CFTRANSACTION
CFQUERY NAME = InsertMain
INSERT INTO tbl_Main (adadadadadadadada)
VALUES (dadadadadadad)
/CFQUERY
CFQUERY NAME = GetID
SELECT MAX ID from tbl_Main
/CFQUERY
/CFTRANSACTION
The question
Well, in fact, you probably will need cflock around this _if_
the database does not support serialized transactions.
I think this would depend on the granularity of the locks within the
database. If you were using Access, again, I think this would work fine with
the default isolation level of
-
From: Kwang Suh
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
No, serializable is not the default level.Automatically serializing
transactions would be a huge performance killer.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
Actually, you can only suggest isolation levels to DB, the DB
is the one that sets isolation levels and does what it think
is the best thing.
While I imagine this could be true for some database, it certainly isn't
true for either SQL Server or Oracle. I don't even
Ooops I meant suggest locking not suggest isolation
levels. You can of course set isolation levels in CF and
this is the way CF recommends locking type to the DB.
Again, though, I don't think this is a recommendation - I'm pretty sure that
whatever you choose for your isolation level will
Tom Kitta wrote:
I am just saying what I read in Certified Cold fusion developer study guide by Ben Forta. page 161 top - SERIALIZABLE is the highest isolation level provided by a database and is the defalut. If you are absolutely sure that this is not the case tell Ben about it.
The standard
Believe it or not, the book is wrong.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 8, 2004 1:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
I am just saying what I read in Certified Cold fusion developer study
guide by Ben Forta. page 161 top
Well, this isn't strictly true either.Some databases can escalate locks
above what you've specified - this is usually a good thing though.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 24, 2003 1:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFTRANSACTION CFLOCK
Ooops
Ooops I meant suggest locking not suggest isolation
levels. You can of course set isolation levels in CF and
this is the way CF recommends locking type to the DB.
Again, though, I don't think this is a recommendation - I'm
pretty sure that whatever you choose for your isolation
Some locking hits are row based:
SELECT column
FROM table WITH (ROWLOCK).
i stand corrected.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
I have Postgresql 7.4 installed.Have a form and I'm trying to
insert the form contents into several tables in the database.
Whenever I wrap the queries with the cftransaction tags and I try to
run this insert template, I get the following message:
The root cause was that: java.sql.SQLException
Lola Lee wrote:
I have Postgresql 7.4 installed.Have a form and I'm trying to
insert the form contents into several tables in the database.
Whenever I wrap the queries with the cftransaction tags and I try to
run this insert template, I get the following message:
The root cause
by CF.If
there's
a problem at any step, all of the inserts/updates have to be rolled back.
I'm using CF5.
It seems that CFTRANSACTION is the way to go.
HOWEVER, I've been told that there have been lots of problems getting
CFTRANSACTION to work on CF5, and instead migrated to doing a similar piece
Craig Michael Nathan wrote:
My sub-questions to you:
[0.a]Have you ever failed to get CFTRANSACTION to work correctly in CF5?
No.
[0.b]Have you heard of any reasons to avoid CFTRANSACTION in CF5?
No.
[0.c]What are the main concerns of using CFTRANSACTION vs. stored
procedure
when
Hey All,
I've seen many posts out there about PostgreSQL and mySQL and rollbacks.I
want to know if they will properly rollback (not commit) if a query(s) fail
inside a CFTRANSACTION block?
TIA
Cheers
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP Director of E-Commerce Development
Electric Edge Systems Group Inc
Bryan Stevenson wrote:
I've seen many posts out there about PostgreSQL and mySQL and rollbacks.I
want to know if they will properly rollback (not commit) if a query(s) fail
inside a CFTRANSACTION block?
PostgreSQL: yes
MySQL: only if you take the provisions described in the MySQL manual
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Jochem van Dieten
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: CFTRANSACTION and PostgreSQL/mySQL
Bryan Stevenson wrote:
I've
Davis
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Nesting CFTRANSACTION?
Actually it shows up in the basetag list for me. I'm on MX 6.1, how
about you?
This is actually the approach I'm taking (and testing right now).
One problem is that CFTRANSACTION, being a structural
type=Boolean
required=No default=False
!--- Attempt to include the relevant
implementation file based on the DataSource type file ---
cfif RecursiveCall
cfinclude
template=DB_#cur.DPDataSource.getType()#\VenueBroker_delete.cfm
cfelse
cftransaction action="">
isolation=SERIALIZA
One possible solution would be to have a version of the delete method,
which does not wrap the delete in cftransaction, e.g.
deleteNoTransaction(). You could then call this version. I know its not
ideal as it leads to code duplication and I'm not sure if transactions
can even span cfc calls
: 03 October 2003 06:14
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Nesting CFTRANSACTION?
I'm in a position where a component can have a parent/child relationship
with other components of the same type.
When I delete a single component, no problem - the method starts a
transaction, deletes the component information
Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 3 October 2003 9:14 p.m.
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Nesting CFTRANSACTION?
One possible solution would be to have a version of the delete method,
which does not wrap the delete in cftransaction, e.g.
deleteNoTransaction(). You could then call
.;^)
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Andre Mohamed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 5:51 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Nesting CFTRANSACTION?
Jim,
There are several approaches one can take here. One of those
possibilities is to utilize the Composite Design
file storage mechanism and a SQL
Server 2000 database as the persistence layer - this change occurs
seamlessly via the broker with no implementation changes.
However CFTRANSACTION is needed to maintain SQL Server 2000 integrity
while CFLOCK would be needed to maintain the XML file integrity.
I've
On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 01:14 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
However when I do this (as I am) from with the parents delete() method
(making the call sorta recursive-like) I get the error we all know and
love: Cannot nest CFTRANSACTIONS
The approach I sometimes take is to have a set of components
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Nesting CFTRANSACTION?
Thanks. it's not really an option for me however.
The basic structure of this system is that the broker controls all of
the persistence layer-stuff.If I were to try and have to track I
outside of it all
-Original Message-
From: Christian Cantrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Nesting CFTRANSACTION?
On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 01:14 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
However when I do this (as I am) from with the parents delete() method
cffunction name=IsTransaction returntype=boolean
cfreturn yesnoformat(listfind(getbasetaglist(),
CFTRANSACTION))
/cffunction
You would think that would be just the thing right? Well doesn't seem to
work. Cftransaction doesn't show up in the base tag list. In my quick test
the code used directly
Actually it shows up in the basetag list for me. I'm on MX 6.1, how
about you?
This is actually the approach I'm taking (and testing right now).
One problem is that CFTRANSACTION, being a structural tag you can't
optionally control the tag outside the content.In other words you
can't do
I'm in a position where a component can have a parent/child relationship
with other components of the same type.
When I delete a single component, no problem - the method starts a
transaction, deletes the component information from the database, cleans
up references to it in several join tables
Hi,
Suddenly I am getting following error in cfm page.
Data source Ora8 verification failed.
The root cause was that: java.sql.SQLException: Usernames and Passwords for
all the database tags within CFTRANSACTION must be the same.
Really that will be greatly appreciate
You have to have the same DSN, including all UID/PWDs, in all your queries in a cftransaction.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Ramesh Deva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFTRANSACTION problem
Hi,
Suddenly I am getting
Ok, I've got a cftransaction construct such as the pseudo code below.
cftransaction action=begin
cfquery name=one/
cfquery name=two/
cfquery name=three/
cfquery name=four/
cfif Success
cftransaction action=commit/
cfelse
Hey Ian,
Your approach with includes is what I use ( I never put queries directly in
a display file...always include for re-use)anything beyond that is
overkill in this situation IMHO.
Why do you use this block?:
cfif Success
cftransaction action=commit/
cfelse
cftransaction action=rollback
Ok, I've got a cftransaction construct such as the pseudo
code below.
cftransaction action=begin
cfquery name=one/
cfquery name=two/
cfquery name=three/
cfquery name=four/
cfif Success
cftransaction action=commit/
cfelse
, 2003 11:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Complex cftransaction constructions.
Hey Ian,
Your approach with includes is what I use ( I never put queries directly in
a display file...always include for re-use)anything beyond that is
overkill in this situation IMHO.
Why do you use this block
Putting each individual query into it's own file and then including the
files wherever needed is the route I'd go. You could use a CFC, if you
wanted, but only if you did the 6.1 update, as 6.0 had issues with method
calls and CFTRANSACTION. However, throwing a CFC into the mix is probably
I'm not sure about the commit and roll back. They exist so I use them. Got
it from some example or the other when I learned cftransaction. There is
other logic in the If blocks that log and report any errors and such. There
is also a cftry block integrated, that I stripped out for simplicity
Dave,
I thought that in earlier posts you recommended the following construct:
cftry
cftransaction
cfquery ...
cfquery ...
cfquery ...
/cftransaction
cfcatch
/cftry
I thought that you didn't need to explicitly perform commit
Ok, I've got a cftransaction construct such as the pseudo
code below.
cftransaction action=begin
...
cfif Success
cftransaction action=commit/
cfelse
cftransaction action=rollback/
/cfif
/cftransaction
Out of curiosity, why do
201 - 300 of 538 matches
Mail list logo
