[OT] Transactions WAS Re: Using Python for business app development

[Ben Leslie]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:

> In article <mailman.1040696911.6657.python-list at python.org>, Ben Leslie wrote:
> >> Furthermore, transactional aspects aren't high on my proirity list.
> > 
> > They should be. Well, they probably should be. If I was running a message
> > board or something like that, where you have many reads, and it doesn't
> > matter if you lose a message or something like that, then maybe I wouldn't
> > care about transactions. But if you want data integrity you'd be
> > silly not to use them.
> 
> how about ZODB then? transaction are intrinsic.  the advantages of
> having transaction support in a database backend are obvious, so why not
> take a database that is based on a transactional concept 

The main reason I don't use ZODB is that, "The ZODB provides 3 
of the ACID properties. Only Consistency is not supported;"[1]. 
To me, consistency is a good thing[tm].

The non-dependance on a specific programming language is also a
 good thing.

> and which is
> accessed "the python way" (vs. SQL)?

The wonderful thing about programming languages is that you 
can abstract away details, such as SQL. So I can assure you that
despite being backed by Postgres my code is very pythonic. There
is very little SQL anywhere.

Benno

[1]http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/FrontPage/guide/node12.html