Re: [boost] [transact] transaction language macros (was: Re: [transact] code in sandbox)

Subject: Re: [boost] [transact] transaction language macros (was: Re: [transact] code in sandbox)
From: strasser_at_[hidden]
Date: 2010-03-05 15:44:17

Zitat von "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>:
>
> I agree this doesn't means that the transaction can not be removed  
> shortly thereafter, but neither the oposite, that is that the  
> transaction will be destructed shortly thereafter. The transaction  
> could be reused if the implementation is improved. I have already,  
> as I showed in a previous mail, moved the transaction declaration  
> out of the try, so the transaction out leaves the retry, and the  
> internal loop.

I think there is another problem with the restart-approach, unless the  
following use case should be invalid:

transaction{
   ...
}retry{
   transaction{
     ...
   }
   throw 1;
}

with the current approach, inside the retry-clause there is a current  
transaction which is not active. the second transaction-scope tries to  
create a nested transaction of the inactive transaction - and throws  
no_active_transaction.

is it a valid use case to run a transaction inside a retry-clause?
if not, why not?

(btw, I'm going to change TM::active_transaction() to  
TM::current_transaction() and add a bool basic_transaction::active(),  
since the current transaction is not necessarily active at all times,  
like in a retry clause)