On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 15:16:16 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Yuval Kogman wrote:
> >everyone gets to choose, and another thing I have in mind is the
> >Transactional role...
> > DBI::Handle does Transactional;
> >To the STM rollbacker and type checker thingy this means that any IO
> >performed by DBI::Handle invoked code is OK - it can be reversed
> >using the Transactional interface it proposes.
>
> Is this needed, when you can just;
>
> atomic {
> unsafeIO { $dbh.begin_work };
>
> unsafeIO { $dbh.do(...) };
>
> unsafeIO { $dbh.commit };
> } CATCH {
> $dbh.rollback;
> };Why have STM like constructs if that's what you're going to do anyway? The point is to be able to compose unrelated atomic block into one atomic action. If we don't get some separation of concerns from STM we might as well be using locks. -- () Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker & /\ kung foo master: /me wields bonsai kittens: neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pgpR96sEUAYbm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
