Actually, atomic transactions are a much better way of approaching
object based persistence.  You really should manage concurrent updates
to objects in the object world, not in the relational world.  If you are
detecting any possible conflicts with an object based transaction
system, you have no need for a transaction system in the database (you
only need atomic updates...which can be accomplished with a
transactional database with a begin, lock, update, and commit sequence
(you are essentially using transactions to implement an atomic update)).

- Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Colin Putney
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 6:45 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Tantalus
>
...snip...
>
> There's a discussion of atomic operations in MySQL here:
> 
>http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/ANSI_diff_Transactions.html#IDX148
>
>Atomic operations is a lighter-weight model than transactions, so it 
>usually offers better performance and concurrency. If this is what 
>you're after Tantalus might be a better solution for you than GLORP.
>
>To be completely honest, I don't expect to see a lot of Tantalus users.

>Not using transactions is fairly unorthodox in the database world, and 
>not many people will even consider it. But hey, it scratches my itch, 
>and maybe somebody else will find it useful as well.
>
>Colin Putney
>Whistler.com