[rucksack-devel] my rucksack

[Vagif Verdi]

EXPLICIT-TRANSACTIONS-P
And by default it would be true.

-----Original Message-----
From: rucksack-devel-bounces at common-lisp.net
[mailto:rucksack-devel-bounces at common-lisp.net] On Behalf Of Arthur Lemmens
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:23 AM
To: Dr. Helmut G. Enders; rucksack-devel at common-lisp.net
Subject: Re: [rucksack-devel] my rucksack

Helmut Enders wrote:

> I finally have finished my first rucksack based application.

Thanks a lot for the report.

> (*) One thing, I'm still fighting with is
>     (with-transaction ....
>
>     nearly all my errors came from using it
>     - to often,
>        (with-transaction () ...
>            (function-which-calls-with-transaction))

Yes, interesting point.  I guess Rucksack could allow nested
transactions by just ignoring all inner WITH-TRANSACTION forms.
(Of course this could also muffle potential errors, so maybe
ignoring inner transactions should be optional.)

>     - or having to many rucksack-calls in one (with-transaction ...

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

>     - or forgetting it to use around a make-instance etc.

Hmm, yes.  IIRC I played with the idea of automatically creating a
'one-shot' transaction for cases like this, but I never implemented
this.  The advantage would be that the persistence layer would be even
more invisible than it is now.  But that could also be a disadvantage.

Maybe it would be a good idea to add some kind of STRICT-TRANSACTIONS-P
flag.  If true, Rucksack would throw an error for nested transactions
or missing transactions.  If false, it would just DWIM and automatically
create missing transactions or ignore superfluous ones.  Does that sound
reasonable?

Arthur


_______________________________________________
rucksack-devel mailing list
rucksack-devel at common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rucksack-devel