There's more than one way to do things | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
but it also means that there may only be one object in the transaction. See my example in another node in this thread about how you can easily write a wrapper package to allow this. sub code (&) {return $_[0]} Why not just use sub instead of code and call like transaction [ $foo, $bar ], sub { ... };? Another small fix is that the "commit not safe after errors, transaction rolled back" message should be croak()ed, not die()d. Not really. Note that $@ already contains the caller's filename and line number. I think this looks very nice:
I wanted a (&) prototype to allow the sub keyword to be left out. So I tried several solutions to select a transaction capable object, $T being my most recent try. But the more I think about it, typing sub isn't so bad. As you say, if you simply supply the dbh to transaction(), nested transactions can be supported. I'll whip up a third version soon. Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' } In reply to Re: Re: RFC: Transactions.pm
by Juerd
|
|