Re: [SQLObject] Temporary Objects (I'm going in!)

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 12:17, Luke Opperman wrote:
[snip]
> Now, an also seemingly functionally equivalent would be Ian's
> TempConnection idea, although I'm not sure I like the interface/look
> of needing to pass in an alternate connection for each tempobject. In
> general, I want tempobjects to be created and used just like they
> were a regular SQLObject, except that they need to be
> persisted/committed. However, I think this might be a clean
> *internal* implementation for my concept of temp objects: when an
> object becomes temp (added to a transaction, or explicitly), it just
> swaps it's connection for a TempConnection. Hmm....

TempConnection uses the same interface you'd use for database
transactions (which I haven't really tried... but in theory that's how
you'd do database transactions).  I think, at least, that both these
should have the same interface.

But when I think more about it, it's just so damn difficult... is this
really that much better than a database transaction?  I mean, maybe it's
possible to get this kind of working, but I suspect it will be a
crippled version of the functionality you'd normally have available.

> That's enough thoughts for now. I'd appreciate comments, but I think
> it just need to implement something and see how it plays..

That's probably a good idea... the issue will probably become much
clearer that way.

  Ian