Re: support for nested transactions

Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> I've been replacing USQL with CLSQL in the project which originally
> spawned USQL years ago.  In the process I needed support for "nested"
> transactions.  Meaning, I needed to be able to have code like this:

Hi Craig! That's nice to hear you're active with CLSQL and that CLSQL
is working well enough to be reasonable substitute for USQL. I'm sure
you recognize much of the object-oriented USQL code, albeit
substantially reworked.

> (with-transaction ...
>   (with-transaction ...
>      (with-transaction ...
> [...] 
> I'll package the diff up, but I'm wondering how others are using CLSQL
> transactions.  What kinda patch you want?  Should I just set up a cvs
> working copy?

Personally, my current employment is using SQL on a non-lisp platform.
So, I'm not using CLSQL transactions. But, I'd love to commit any
improvements that you make. A unified diff is my preferred patch type.
CLSQL code base in in subversion, but it's a part of my personal home
directory. If you're going to be active in development and
maintainence, I can work on getting access to that portion of my
personal subversion respository for you -- similar to what I did with
Marcus when he made substantial and sustained contributions back in
2004. You can see the details in ./ChangeLog.

> I'm also going to be doing some other worth with CLSQL related to
> inheritance of view-classes and supporting several different ways of
> laying them out in the db tables.

If you'd like to share them, I'll be glad to commit them to the CLSQL
base. 

Also, adding to the test suite for any functionality additions that
you make would be very useful. Ran into a bit of a difficulty
accepting a usec time patch last year for which fixes are still being
submitted. Thus, I'm requesting additions to the test suite to
accompany new functionality.

-- 
Kevin Rosenberg
[email protected]