Bill Schwab wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Are any of you using transactions with the database connection? Any
> experience to report, good or bad? I'm using Access 97 databases if that
> makes any difference.
>
> Have a good one,
>
Bill,
Sorry I didn't get to your note sooner.
Yes, I've used transactions with the database connection. In my
esperience
the RDBMS being used makes all the difference, not necessarily in
capability,
but in the protocol used to handle it. There are semantic differences
almost
everywhere you look, even within the same vendor's family, across
hosts.
Microsoft is particularly bad, but IBM's DB2 used to behave quite
differently
depending upon the host.
For instance Graham Parker in his "From Access to SQL Server" located
at
http://www.vbug.co.uk/magazine/i3/from_access_to_sql_server.htmreports the following behavior with respect to transactions between
Access and SQL Server:
Another major headache in the front-end was the use of transactions.
Access handles transactions differently from SQL Server. Take the
following lines of pseudo-code.
Begin a Transaction
Copy all records from table 1 into table2
Delete all records from table 2
End the Transaction
In Access this will work fine, but in SQL Server the Server will
wait for the first part of the transaction to be committed before
it handles the second part. This is because the SQL Server support
for nested transactions is not as advanced as access. Because of
poor
transaction handling (something not covered in any of the upsizing
documents I had read) we had to spend a week putting a lot of our
audit trails into Server side database triggers.
[Interestingly enough there are fewer problems between Access and
Visual Foxpro because those both use the so-called Jet 3 engine for
their database manager. --jtg]
I'm generally pleased with how the DBConnection works and most of any
grumbles I sound are really noises about the lack of compatibility
between different databases and how that makes writing common
components
hard. (This is one reason why MIS professionals tend to stick with
a particular RDBMS with almost emotional attachment.) But I
think Smalltalk makes this inherent confusion easier to master. The
only real solution to that is to do what the MIS professionals do:
Stick with one kind of database.
Does this answer what you were asking? Or am I hopelessly off course?
--Jan
[snip]
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Theodore Galkowski
[hidden email]
The Smalltalk Idiom
[hidden email]
*********************************************************************
"Smalltalk? Yes, it's really that slick."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more? Check out
http://www.dnsmith.com/SmallFAQ/ http://www.object-arts.com/DolphinWhitePaper.htm http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/users/johnson/smalltalk/*********************************************************************
Locked
