Hey Matthew,
2012/1/4 Matthew Sherborne <[email protected]>:
> That was a super interesting discussion :)
>
> My 2c is .. I can see both points of view. It is one more thing to add to
> the learning curve of Wt.
True, although it is not something that a user will hit soon ?
> It may break some existing code that relies on the default rollback
> behaviour.
Yes. This will be documented in the release notes. I believe the code
will be more clear however, since a rollback() will stand out much
better than a missing commit().
> void save() {
> dbo::Session&s = getSession();
> dbo::Transaction t(s);
>
> dbo::ptr<BlogPost> post = getPost();
> post->setTitle(_title->textValue());
>
> if (user->hasWriteToUpdate(post)) {
> t.commit();
> }
> }
>
> I'm thinking there may be some checks you'd want to do during a transaction,
> that may inolve more DB queries. Of course this could be written instead:
>
> ...
> if (!user->hasWriteToUpdate(post)) {
> t.rollback();
> }
> ...
>
> So in summary, I guess its up to the dev team to weight up the pros and
> cons:
I believe it's helped me already, so I would be curious how it
evaluates in real projects.
So we're going to leave this in and take it out if we get complaints later.
Regards,
koen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual
desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure
costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
witty-interest mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
