Re[2]: [Dbi-interbase-devel] 0.21 alpha released

[Michael S. <mi...@ch...>]

Hello Mark,

Friday, September 08, 2000, 2:57:56 AM, you wrote:

MDA> i know where you are coming from; i waffled back and forth while writing it.
MDA> in the end, i decided to use the exact naming and syntax of the SET TRANSACTION
MDA> statement in interbase embedded sql, because it obviates the need for
MDA> extended documentation. i've learned not to underestimate the pain of 
MDA> deviating needlessly from an already-documented interface.
MDA> unfortunately, those keywords don't map particularly well to the underlying isc C api,
MDA> nor to traditional transactional theory, which bothers me too.

MDA> of course, we could accept both, i suppose...

What do you think about my suggestion? I offered the following:

Any database connection has the default transaction that is controlled
by AutoCommit attribute and by the additional attributes of "prepare",
"do"  and  the  like methods.
$sth = $dbh->prepare("select ...", { tr => \%params });

Besides  that the user may assign as many named transactions as he (we
Russuan  call  user  ALWAYS  "he"  ;-) ) likes by the syntax:
$tr = $dbh->begin(\%params).

This  transaction  object  has  the  same  methods  as  $dbh has, i.e.
prepare, execute, selectrow_array and others.

This  model doesn't conflict with "SET TRANSACTION" syntax because the
parameters  can be named the same, so you need not to develop your own
documentation. So,

$tr = - $dbh->begin({
  write => 1,
  wait => 0,
  isolation => 'snapshot',
  using => [$dbh1, $dbh2],
  reserving => [
    {
      shared => 1,
      write => 0,
      names => [qw(table1 table2)],
    },
    {
      shared => 0,
      write => 1,
      names => [qw(table3 table4)],
    }
  ]
});

I would like this, but you, of course, may disallow it, and I would do
nothing  with  it but to resent and to write my transactions by my own
:-)

Best regards,
 Michael                            mailto:mi...@ch...