Am Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:48:50PM +1200 schrieb Greg Ewing via Python-list:
> On 8/09/24 9:20 am, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > try:
> > do something
> > except:
> > log something
> > finally:
> > .commit()
> >
> >cadence is fairly Pythonic and elegant
Am Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:48:50PM +1200 schrieb Greg Ewing via Python-list:
> On 8/09/24 9:20 am, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > try:
> > do something
> > except:
> > log something
> > finally:
> > .commit()
> >
> >cadence is fairly Pythonic and elegant
On 07/09/2024 22:20, Karsten Hilbert via Python-list wrote:
Am Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 02:09:28PM -0700 schrieb Adrian Klaver:
Right, and this was suggested elsewhere ;)
And, yeah, the actual code is much more involved :-D
I see that.
The question is does the full code you show fail?
The co
Am Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 02:58:03PM +0100 schrieb Rob Cliffe via Python-list:
> >Ugly:
> >
> > try:
> > do something
> > except:
> > log something
> > finally:
> > try:
> > .commit()
> > except:
> >
On 8/09/24 11:03 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-09-08, Greg Ewing wrote:
try:
do something
.commit()
except:
log something
.rollback()
What if there's an exception in your exception handler? I'd put the
rollback in the 'finally' handler, so it's always called.
On 9/09/24 2:13 am, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
For what it's worth here's the current state of code:
That code doesn't inspire much confidence in me. It's far too
convoluted with too much micro-management of exceptions.
I would much prefer to have just *one* place where exceptions are
caught and l
