> Yeah, I'm quite put out by the whole thing. It seems very
> strange to me that CF took a step back from every DMBS I've
> ever used, by making transaction control statements depend
> on eachother, rather than being standalone commands. I
> suppose the tag-based nature of the language demanded it,
> but then to go against that nature and allow standalone tags,
> but only within an existing open/close tag pair seems really
> f***ed up. One or the other, ya know?
I'm coming into this thread rather late, but if you're talking about the use
of nested CFTRANSACTION tags, it's my understanding that you aren't supposed
to have "standalone" CFTRANSACTION tags in any case - each CFTRANSACTION tag
should always have a closing CFTRANSACTION tag:
<cftransaction isolation="serializable">
... Some queries ...
<cftransaction action="commit"/> <!--- note the closing slash --->
... Some more queries ...
</cftransaction>
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
