+1 for removing TransactionManager::bind() and ::has_active(), and make its constructor throw if there already is a TransactionManager
+1 to support connecting/disconnecting resources to support opening one database file first and then another
I have now implemented that, with one difference: why even construct a basic_transaction_manager when it is a singleton and all of its state is mutable(connecting and disconnecting resources)? basic_transaction_manager now has only static members, e.g. TxMgr::active_transaction(): https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/transaction/dev/basic_transaction_ma... changeset: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/59230 Am Friday 22 January 2010 16:29:33 schrieb Vicente Botet Escriba:
strasser wrote:
tx.check();
//do something unrelated, non-transactional, that takes a while
//continue modifying res
check doesn't means to much, we will need something more specific. But we will see.
what do you mean? the function name or anything beyond that?
The name. Something more explicit as abort_if_rollback_only().
I'd use check_transaction or something like that. calling it abort_if_rollback_only() sounds like calling commit_transaction() publish_if_no_conflict().
that the pointer might not be an atomic type on some exotic platform is not the issue, I believe this code is also invalid on x86. when there is a thread switch at (**) another thread goes ahead with an unconstructed transaction manager!
Oh, you where loking for that error. What about
txmgr* tmp=operator new(sizeof(txmgr)); //(**) //construct the txmgr in tmp; instance_=tmp;
how do you control that? Boost.Atomic? that would probably be close to using a mutex (at least a memory fence), but the issue is now irrelevant anyway.