On Apr 28, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Juergen Saar wrote:
> No, that's the dark side of this kind of working.
>
> For us this is really no problem,
> for most installation we use informix without transaction
> because it is much faster and we would need transactions
> in about 1% of our software. So we have implemented
> a kind of self-healing for most kinds of data-defects.
Not that I think it is a good solution in this case, but since you
have it in place already - here is how you can do transactions
wrapping multiple DataContexts (this will require 1.2 release)
http://objectstyle.org/confluence/display/CAYDOC/Understanding
+Transactions
> Nevertheless it would be fine to have a fifo strategy for db-
> statements in
> cayenne.
I am yet convinced that this would be a good general DB commit
strategy (it might as well be, still I am not ready now to discuss
this in depth). But here is a thing - nested contexts do use the FIFO
strategy when committing from one to another, and the needed change
order information is available already during commit. So we'll gladly
accept a patch that implements a FIFO strategy as an option ;-)
Still I'd like to understand what causes the original problem... Is
this a SQLServer/Informix thing??? I've never seen it on Oracle or
Postgres.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Apr 28 2006 - 09:20:19 EDT