Em Terça 30 Maio 2006 10:07, Kevin Dangoor escreveu: > There could be a config variable to turn that off globally. > Additionally, there could be an option to expose() to not do > transactions (though that feels a bit ugly, particularly given that > you can have multiple expose decorators now).
What about moving the transactions code from the expose() decorator to a decorator by itself? Adding boilerplate code would just require the new decorator and using our own code would be "easier"... This would also solve a problem that was reported by jvanasco with regards to passing some information from one point to the other without having it rolled-back in the end of the current method. (Wouldn't it make it easier to use continuations?) -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
