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.
Vicente