Chris McDonough writes:
Currently, yes. This is arguably wrong. Can you tell us, what the semantics of subtransactions is?
It has been my impression that subtransactions are a kludge, essentially implemented for ZCatalog, to reduce the amount of main memory for large transactions. Rather than keep all modified objects in memory, they are flushed onto a file to be copied from there when the transaction is finally commited. If this is the case, then objects that do not need such hackery, simply provide empty "commit_sub" and "abort_sub" and do all their work in "commit". Dieter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Withers" <chrisw@nipltd.com> To: "Chris McDonough" <chrism@digicool.com> Cc: "Ian Sealy" <Ian.Sealy@bristol.ac.uk>; <zope@zope.org> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [Zope] subtransactions
Chris McDonough wrote:
Because most databases don't have the notion of a subtransaction.
Hang on... how come, if a file upload needs to commit a subtransaction, that means that an SQL method you call while processing the same request also needs to support sub-transactions?
confusedly,
Chris