Re: Interaction with transactional backends?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 13:15, philipl overt org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was just looking over the backend api with the fact that changesets are
> currently not transactional. As far as I can see, it's currently not
> possible to take advantage of an already transactional backend because the
> backend api doesn't account for it.
> 
> It seems that this might be a good idea; rather than trying (at some
> indetermiate point in the future) to make gconf transactional independent
> of the backend, let transaction support be a backend property (eg: begin,
> commit, abort methods in the backend vtable) which are used by Changesets.
> 
> I'd be happy to take a stab at coding this if it's thought to be worth doing.
> 

This is certainly how I'd expect transactions to be implemented, since
you have to do the transactional-ness differently for each kind of
backend.

I'd guess you'd want to change the backend vtable in conjunction with
modifying at least one backend to use the new vtable entries, otherwise
it's hard to know how to design it though.

Havoc