On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 04:23, Toby Dickenson wrote: > On Tuesday 11 February 2003 5:21 pm, Jeremy Hylton wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 12:10, Shane Hathaway wrote: > > > I'd like to do the transaction states, because it would keep the code in > > zodb3 and zodb4 similar. > > There are application-level reasons to mark a transaction as doomed, and I > would like to keep *that* code looking similar ;-). The transaction states > approach would work in that context too, right?
Here's a late answer: If an application needs to mark a transaction as doomed, it is supposed to call get_transaction().abort(). If a transactional resource manager, like a database connection, needs to mark a transaction as doomed, it: - returns False from prepare() -- the ZODB4 spelling - raises an exception in tpc_vote() -- the ZODB3 spelling Jeremy _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )