On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 11:04 -0500, Matt Feifarek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Michael Merickel <mmeri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Ben was investigating the idea of tying pyramid_beaker to a > transaction, but I'm not sure if anything ever came of it. > Maybe we should resurrect the idea. > > > It seems to make sense. > > > In fact, an argument could be made that if a transaction fails, the > entire contents of the view callable should not execute...
We don't know whether the "transaction failed" until the view callable is called. The definition of a transaction "failing" is either an exception is raised by view code or the view response code is 4XX/5XX. - C > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "pylons-discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss > +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
