Remy Blank wrote: > Christian Boos wrote: > >> - We could rename @run_as_transaction to @with_transaction, suggesting >> the evolution to using 'with' when moving to 2.5, where this will become >> "with transaction(env, db) as db: ..." >> > > I like that. +1 > > >> - We could return True/False/None depending on the outcome: True when >> committed, False when rollbacked, None if still within a transaction >> > > I don't think there will be an equivalent mechanism when using the > "with" statement, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to introduce that. >
I agree, but see the "sibling" thread, where I develop that further... -- Christian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" 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/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
