[rucksack-devel] transactions and distributed objects

[Arthur Lemmens]

Nikodemus wrote:

> To clarify, I didn't mean user-extensible transactions.

I agree with Marco that user-extensible transactions probably don't
make much sense.

> I ment that (1) if dispatching on the class of the transactions
> is a workable implementation stratefy, then different isolation
> levels should be "simple" to achieve

Erm, yes.  Dispatching on the transaction class is probably OK.  Of
course the interesting question is how to *implement* isolation
levels, not how to find them.  Reed's strategy looks like a very
elegant solution to me, but I'd need to work out the details.  One
'detail' is that he doesn't seem to mention garbage collection
anywhere, which is a bit odd because his approach 'conses' like hell.

> (2) if we only have a single isolation level, then I'd perfer it to
> be to be fully serializable.

Yes, I think I agree.

Arthur