[ZODB-Dev] ZODB4 project plan

[Christian Reis]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:36:43AM -0500, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
>   GW> OK, not *every* application.  I over-stated the case.  But the
>   GW> one-thread-one-transaction policy is arbitrary and it's just
>   GW> that -- a *policy*.  As a general purpose-library, ZODB should
>   GW> provide mechanism, not policy, whenever possible.
> 
> I don't know why I'm beating you up on this, but you started it
> <wink>.  It's not even an arbitrary policy.  It's a really good policy
> for a lot of simple applications.  We're in violent agreement that it
> should be possible to choose other policies, but I think the current
> one is a fine default.

(since we're being violent ;) Why is the policy of
one-connection-one-transaction-scope a bad default? Or why is it worse
than the current one? I find having multiple connections but a single
transaction "scope" confusing, at least.

You can read that as a +1 for changing the policy to a transaction per
connection. :-)

Take care,
--
Christian Reis, Senior Engineer, Async Open Source, Brazil.
http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331 | NMFL