Re: Is it really that bad?
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:26:47 +1300
Message-ID: <Nb8p6.2940$cG72.84738166_at_news.xtra.co.nz>
"David Cressey" <david_at_dcressey.com> wrote in message
news:8u7p6.36248$2X4.132260_at_petpeeve.ziplink.net...
>
> > straight-forward, until the came time to save the objects. There
> > didn't seem to be any transaction management in the database,
> > which was something they wanted, so what I did was:
>
> Let me get this straight.
>
> You had to implement all the ACID features of transaction processing
> yourself?
Sorry, I think I described this incorrectly: using this particular ORDBMS,
you don't explicitly begin a transaction, it is ended after a
commit/rollback,
which then starts the next one (Aside: is it safe to assume this is
standard?).
We wanted an instance (and all associated instances) saved with one
commit (or rollback), after executing several insert/update database calls
independently, rather than a commit after each.
> Why wasn't the application layered on an RDBMS or an OODBMS that has
> transaction management built in?
>
> Is it really cheaper to build than to buy?
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> David Cressey
> www.dcressey.com
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 06 2001 - 17:26:47 CET