[rucksack-devel] Re: Rucksack, ECLM

[Arthur Lemmens]

Nikodemus wrote:

> * Default transactions: are transactions intended to be explicit,
>   or is the intention that eventually a simple (setf some-slot) would
>   generate its own transaction unless there already was one?

My plan is to add some kind of AUTO-COMMIT flag (with default value NIL)
to rucksacks.  Then I intend to implement something like this:

   IF a persistent object is modified AND we're not inside a transaction
   THEN IF the auto-commit flag is T
        THEN create a transaction
             change the object
             commit the transaction
        ELSE signal an error.

>   There is a pleasing clarity to explicit transactions, but they
>   also mean that persistent objects cannot be manipulated by functions
>   who don't know they are persistent.

Yep.

>   I think in at least 90% of the cases it would be natural for the
>   called to provide a surrounding transaction contexts, but I'm not
>   sure how universal that is.

Does the above sound like a reasonable solution?

Arthur