On Wednesday 06 March 2013, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > So part 3 of the plan is to replace TransactionMiddleware by something > based on transaction.atomic that actually works. For lack of a better > idea, I'm considering deprecating the middleware and replacing it with a > setting. This doesn't qualify as loose coupling; better ideas welcome!
Another half-baked idea: I think atomic_urlpatterns (which wrap the view callables in @atomic) could do a lot of the trick. They would leave middleware database accesses out of the transaction, which could turn out to be a "gotcha", but could be acceptable in many cases. Shai. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
