[rucksack-devel] Re: Rucksack, ECLM

[Marco Baringer]

"Arthur Lemmens" <alemmens at xs4all.nl> writes:

>> however i disagree with "They should have the same effect as if the
>> oldest transaction has started and completed its job before all
>> younger transactions" i believe it should read:
>>
>> "They should have the same effect as if all the operations happend in
>> the same instant as the commits
>
> That's not the approach I've taken (see my answer to Nikodemus in
> http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/rucksack-devel/2006-May/000001.html),
> but maybe the approach you describe is better.  I need to think about
> the consequences.

i'd missed that bit. so rucksack would be just a persistent lisp heap,
as opposed to transactional lisp object database, works for me :)
considering that the approach i described is difficult to implement
and slower, it may very well not be worth it.

> I'll reply to the rest of your message later.

the rest of my message was based on the assumption that rucksack
needed to provide pure level-4 isolation. read-commited isolation is
fine and if that's the route rucksack takes there's no need to respond
to the rest of my mail.

-- 
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
	-Leonard Cohen