RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR::DB destructors and uncommitted transactions

> From: 'Roman Neuhauser' [mailto:neuhauser@bellavista.cz] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:29 PM > > # 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. Hmm, no I didnt. But I should probably look at your patch first before making further comments. Regards, Lukas PS: I didn't want to confuse you with the reference to MDB. It is basically an alternative abstraction layer we have in PEAR.