MCS design proposal

[Jannis Pohlmann]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:42:19 -0400, Erik Harrison wrote:

> On 3/20/07, Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:23:39 +0100, Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't get the point of transaction IDs Havoc mentioned. How
> > > could this be useful for us?
> >
> > If you want to write a bunch of config entries out, one after
> > another, but don't want any to actually get written unless they all
> > get written, you could use a transaction.  Basically you'd start a
> > transaction, batch up a bunch of org.xfce.MCS.Set() operations, and
> > they'd either all get committed to the config store, or none.
> > There may not be many places where this is useful; I dunno.

Thanks for the explanation. I like that feature. I agree with what Erik
pointed out. Our small Xfce apps probably don't need this, but we also
have to think about the future. Maybe one day there will be larger
applications for which this makes sense.

However, I'd consider this optional. It shouldn't be too hard to add
this later.

  - Jannis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/attachments/20070321/6a9158fd/attachment.pgp>