On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 04:12:25PM -0700, Daniel L. Rall wrote:
> It still doesn't change the fact that the MySQL adapter, for instance,
> will
> have transaction-specific methods in it for which it has no support
> (even if
> they do nothing).
Sure, although the actual proposed method under discussion -
objectDataNeedsTrans() - makes perfect sense for MySQL: the answer is
no :-)
> Could another abstract class that extends DB be
> created
> into which all transaction-specific [or fill in your db-specific
> feature]
> interfaces could go? This would probably mean mucking w/ BasePeer, but
> it
> would mean a hell of a lot less mucking. :)
This sounds like a good idea for the actual transaction stuff
(begin/commit/rollback). Clearly some thought needs to be put into a
reasonable design for transaction handling in BasePeer - most of the
elements are here in this thread as far as I can see, they just need
putting together into a coherent plan.
--
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
