Re: PEAR::DB destructors and uncommitted transactions

# smith@backendmedia.com / 2003-06-05 15:08:05 +0200: > > From: Roman Neuhauser [mailto:neuhauser@bellavista.cz] > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:59 PM > > > > 1) "if you want destructors rolling back transactions, have a > > hierarchy parallel to PEAR::DB, with your drivers implementing > > the feature" (we're already doing this for other features, so no > > big deal, this is OOP afterall) > > > > 2) add _DB_* to the individual drivers which implement transactions. > > I don't think this would be such a good idea. > > > > 3) add _DB_common(), and expectError(DB_ERROR_NOT_CAPABLE) > > MDB does 1) ... I have not tested it as much as I probably should > however. I'm not sure I made myself clear with 1). What I meant was that it could be stated that rolling back outstanding transactions in the request shutdown stage is not a goal for PEAR::DB::*, and users should subclass the drivers instead. Is that what you got from reading the sentence? I don't know MDB. -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html