On 8/15/07, Michael Lackhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my $db = My::DB->new();
>
> $db->do_transaction(
> sub {
> my $o = My::Thing->new();
> $o->foo(123);
> $o->bar(456);
> $o->save;
> die "Does it rollback?";
>
On 8/17/07, John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But really, I'd like to solve this somehow so the default way works as
> well. It would be nice if I could ask Apache::DBI not to call
> reset_startup_state(), perhaps by passing a special connect attribute:
Do you think that Apache::DBI shou
On 8/17/07, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you think that Apache::DBI should be doing this on every connect
> call to begin with? I suppose it depends on whether it is trying to
> provide safety for ported CGI scripts, or a general purpose persistent
> database connection.
Exactly
On 17.08.2007 16:20 John Siracusa wrote:
> On 8/15/07, Michael Lackhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> my $db = My::DB->new();
>>
>> $db->do_transaction(
>> sub {
>> my $o = My::Thing->new();
>> $o->foo(123);
>> $o->bar(456);
>> $o->sa
On 8/17/07, Michael Lackhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17.08.2007 16:20 John Siracusa wrote:
> > On 8/15/07, Michael Lackhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> my $db = My::DB->new();
> >>
> >> $db->do_transaction(
> >> sub {
> >> my $o = My::Thing->new();
> >>
>
> I just meant that it'd be a change in historic behavior that could
> break some people's code when they upgrade (not that RDBO is 1.0 yet,
> but it's still nice to avoid this kind of thing, if possible).
This is off-topic, but what lies ahead on the road between RDBO 0.7xx and
1.0? Are there
On 17.08.2007 22:53 John Siracusa wrote:
>> So, if I understand it right, there are really two problems:
>> - no rollback when it should be (my do_transaction above)
>> - a rollback when there should be none (your warn)
>
> Once the database handle is reset to auto-commit, any subsequent
> rollba
