Comments on: Dealing with transactions

By: Session-per-request with Nancy « Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Session-per-request with Nancy « Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:50:09 +0000

[...] are many ways of implementing it, from Ayende’s base controller to (N)Hibernate’s contextual [...]

By: Distributed Weekly 131 — Scott Banwart's Blog

Distributed Weekly 131 — Scott Banwart's Blog — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:41:07 +0000

[...] Dealing with transactions [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:15:00 +0000

I’m not sure the UI knows about storage necessarily. You could wrap it up in a unit of work class that hides the actual implementation.

What pain does having this in the UI layer cause?

By: Philliep.Menelik@yahoo.com

Philliep.Menelik@yahoo.com — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:09:00 +0000

We can write a http module for it, but the problem is not solution.
The UI level knows about the storage. I don’t have a better solution for this problem now, but something is not okay.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:19:00 +0000

So push it down a layer then. Create an action filter or http module.

By: Radu Vunvulea

Radu Vunvulea — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:37:00 +0000

What I don’t like at this solution is that the controller have knowledge about the persistence layer and about the transaction. On the UI layer, we control how data store works. I don’t think that UI should have any knowledge about the data store and transactions.

By: The Morning Brew - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #991

The Morning Brew - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #991 — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:32:59 +0000

[...] Dealing with transactions – Jimmy Bogard continues discussion of transactional operations, discussing why his service bus solution to make operations transactional is different from running the non-transactional operations after the transaction. [...]

By: Sam McKoy

Sam McKoy — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:46:00 +0000

You would forget to put a filter on a controller but wouldn’t forget to set it’s baseclass?

Surely if you go to the effort to abstract your unit of work this much you’re probably the type of person that already uses DI/can make global filters.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:39:00 +0000

Keep in mind that it’s Ayende’s code But supposed we did. That would mean that I would need to put that filter attribute on my actions (which I would forget). Let’s put it on all of our controllers (which I would also forget). At that point, you can just put it on the controller, which implements all of the filter interfaces. Also, the session is just on a protected field in the base controller, which would make it hard to get to.
If you did have DI and all that fun-ness, I would go the action filter route, however.

By: dotnetchris

dotnetchris — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:34:00 +0000

Is there a reason you have a RavenController instead of RavenTransactionActionFilterAttribute?