Ed Leafe wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Paul McNett wrote: > >> Again, I believe that AutoCommit is named almost backwards, and >> that we >> need a new ExplicitTransactions property. > > AutoCommit has nothing to do with transactions. All it is > designed > to do is control the additional commit() call that some backends > require after data is changed.
I don't understand how AutoCommit couldn't have anything to do with transactions, if commit() commits a transaction. If I understand correctly, most backends require you to commit your transaction explicitly before any of your data becomes permanent in the db. This is because most backends implicitly BEGIN a transaction if a DML command comes through with no transaction already opened on that connection. But... they don't require that the transaction be committed right after the DML command. They just require that it happen sometime, or the changes will be lost. Is my understanding different than yours? > If you are using transactions under programmatic control, then there > is no reason whatsoever that you would want this behavior, and so you > would set AutoCommit to True to tell Dabo not to add the additional > commit() call. I realize that this may not be the optimum name, which > is why I took the time to explain the derivation of the behavior and > how it came to be a property, and why I said that I think that a > discussion of a better name would be welcome. If I understand Uwe correctly, Dabo is still committing automatically even with AutoCommit set to True. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-dev This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/dabo-dev/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
