Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [transaction] New Boost.Transaction library under discussion
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-29 02:11:59

----- Original Message -----
From: <strasser_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [transaction] New Boost.Transaction library under discussion

> Zitat von "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>:
>>> any ideas for a namespace?
>> transactions?
> hmm, I assumed that was against some boost naming guideline, but I see
> there are a number of libraries that use the plural (for no apparent
> reason?).
> better. if we can come up with with something to the effect of
> "transaction processing library" (but not "tpl") I'd prefer that but I
> guess "transactions" is ok.

I'd also prefer a short name, but we need one that is enough significant to be adopted by the Boost community. Quite often transaction is abreviatted as "tx", what about "txl"?

>> Well, this do not concerns Boost.Transaction. From my side, I would
>> let stm::transaction to refer to the single-phase transaction for STM.
> ok, agreed. but just out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for doing that?
> using boost.transactions should not have any overhead when used with a
> single resource(no lazy transaction start either), so why do you want
> to duplicate the code obtaining the active transaction etc. in your
> library?

OK, I see. In this case it could be reasonable to add the shortcut. This depends if the user will need other classes from Boost.Transaction.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at