At 05:05 PM 8/1/00 +0200, Monty Taylor wrote:
>Good point. It still irks me to have two DA's though. It gets confusing
>enough
>with the three different DA's running around now, much less if one of
>them
>actually had two valid versions. What if we had two classes like you
>said, but
>then in the
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Good point. It still irks me to have two DA's though. It gets confusing
> enough
> with the three different DA's running around now, much less if one of
> them
> actually had two valid versions. What if we had two classes like you
> said, but
> then in t
Good point. It still irks me to have two DA's though. It gets confusing
enough
with the three different DA's running around now, much less if one of
them
actually had two valid versions. What if we had two classes like you
said, but
then in the manage_addForm had a checkbox for Transactions enabl
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Monty Taylor wrote:
> A question would be, what should the commit/rollback mechanism decide to
> do when the transaction deals with tables of both types.
It should raise ProgrammingError, "You're screwed".
If you need transactional capabilities, then you just can't mix
trans
