Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-08 Thread Nick Ing-Simmons
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:23:37 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: Here's some high-level emulation of what it should do. eval { my($_a, $_b, $c) = ($a, $b, $c); ... ($a, $b, $c) = ($_a, $_b, $_c); }

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-07 Thread Nick Ing-Simmons
Dlux [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I've deemed to be "too complex".) (Also note that I'm not a | database | guru, so please bear with me, and don't ask me to write the code | :-) Implementing threads must be done in a very clever way. It may be put in a shared library (mutex

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-06 Thread dLux
/--- On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:57:30PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: | "JH" == Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | Now, "all" that needs to be taken care of, is make sure that | the final | assignment from the localized and changed variables to their | outer-scoped

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-06 Thread Chaim Frenkel
"JH" == Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think we can do this immediately. Can you come up with the right API and/or hooks that are needed so that it might be retrofited? JH I think language magic helping to do the user level data locking is JH a dead-in-the-water idea.

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-06 Thread dLux
/--- On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 05:16:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: | Okay, I have read it now. Now I'm going to make suggestions :-) | (Note | that so far I've been commenting only on the aspects of making | things | 'thread-safe', not on the RFC itself. 'Threadsafing' Perl

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-06 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
Are you satisfied with this? I think this is a good compromise, and still powerful :-) Me satisfied? Well, kind of. I see the need, I just disagree with the proposed interface and extent. I will not comment on the subject much more because I sense that soon we'll be hip deep in database

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-05 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 01:42 AM 9/4/00 +0200, dLux wrote: What it needs in the core is pretty small btw: I think you underestimate things here a tad... - a new keyword, which is similar to "local" Okay, that's small. - some extension to the TIE interface (some new callbacks) As is this. - some extension to the

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-05 Thread dLux
/--- On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:48:38AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: | - two-phase commit handler, rollback coordinator (the above two | is |connected to this: very simple algorhythm!) | | Here's the killer. This is *not* simple. At all. Not even close. | | Doing this properly with data

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-05 Thread Bart Lateur
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:48:38 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: - two-phase commit handler, rollback coordinator (the above two is connected to this: very simple algorhythm!) Here's the killer. This is *not* simple. At all. Not even close. Doing this properly with data sources you completely

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-09-03 Thread dLux
| Transactions are obviously going to be expensive and complicated, | which | is why I suggested implementing them outside the core: [...] | That's not quite sufficient for full transactions either. We | should also allow | user code to replace the assignment op in the virtual

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-31 Thread Chaim Frenkel
"KF" == Ken Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: KF Chaim Frenkel wrote: You are now biting off quite a bit. KF What good is half a transaction? If transactions are to be useful, KF they should be fully supported -- including rolling back stuff some KF third party module did to its internal

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-30 Thread Chaim Frenkel
You are now biting off quite a bit. This is the generic problem that all database systems have to do to handle transactions. I believe that this will increase the deadlock possibilities. Without a transaction, it might have been possible to get in and out of a subroutine without holding the lock

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-29 Thread Ken Fox
Chaim Frenkel wrote: "SF" == Steve Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SF Or what about a variable attribute: SF my $x : transactional SF and making the effect completely lexical? Why would other scopes need to SF see such variables? You haven't handled the multiple variable variety. You

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-29 Thread John Porter
Ken Fox wrote: I was thinking about this same problem while reading RFC 130. It seems like transactions and exceptions are closely related. Should we combine the two? try transaction { ... } That's a really interesting extension to exceptions -- code that has no

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-29 Thread dLux
/--- On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 04:18:57PM -0400, John Porter wrote: | I was thinking about this same problem while reading RFC 130. It | seems | like transactions and exceptions are closely related. Should we | combine | the two? |try transaction { | ... |} How would you

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-29 Thread John Porter
(I didn't think to respond to this until I saw a later response from dlux.) Ken Fox wrote: try transaction { ... } That's a really interesting extension to exceptions -- code that has no side-effects unless it finishes. Well, maybe transaction-enabling variables could help

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-28 Thread Steve Fink
dLux wrote: /--- On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:25PM -0400, John Porter wrote: | Still not good. "trans" is too overloaded word. "transaction"? | "transactional"? (a bit too long...) "atomic"? | | "acid"? \--- "transactional" and "transaction" are quite long, I don't like that.

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-28 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
Or what about a variable attribute: my $x : transactional and making the effect completely lexical? Why would other scopes need to see such variables? Hear, hear! We do not want zillion and a half new keywords now that we have attributes. -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ #

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:19 PM 8/28/00 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Or what about a variable attribute: my $x : transactional and making the effect completely lexical? Why would other scopes need to see such variables? Hear, hear! We do not want zillion and a half new keywords now that we have

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-28 Thread John Porter
Steve Fink wrote: "cond" for conditional? I was thinking along that line, too. But coopting "conditional" in any way is probably an ungood idea. Probly "trans" is good; it has multiple useful mnemonic values: transactional, transfer, transparent... -- John Porter We're building

Re: RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-28 Thread Chaim Frenkel
"SF" == Steve Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SF Or what about a variable attribute: SF my $x : transactional SF and making the effect completely lexical? Why would other scopes need to SF see such variables? You haven't handled the multiple variable variety. You will need to able to have a

RFC 130 (v4) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-24 Thread Perl6 RFC Librarian
This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6 =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Szabó, Balázs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 17 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 24 Aug 2000 Version: 4 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]