Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:38:39 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Alex Belits <abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, rivers@dignus.com, capriotti0@hotmail.com, capriotti@geocities.com, config@FreeBSD.ORG, joe.shevland@horizonti.com Subject: Re: WebAdmin Message-ID: <199801311108.VAA03258@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:29:04 -0800." <Pine.LNX.3.96.980131020956.8348A-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I will ask again; would people *PLEASE* take this conversation to
-config, where it belongs.
> On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > I think that the atomicity of the transaction for HTML is an implementation
> > detal; a detail best served by defineing how a transaction is to take place.
> >
> > That the HTML post is a "transaction" is seperate from "what to do when
> > an HTML post is seen and you are an HTML server".
>
> Of course, implementation can treat it as a transaction or not. I only
> mean that HTTP protocol with forms uploaf provides a mechanism that allows
> HTTP server to use transactions regardless of the model used by client for
> its actions as long as the client uses HTTP.
HTTP has *nothing* to do with the parameter store. HTTP is an
abstraction within the presentation layer ("user interface").
If you are using HTTP in the presentation layer, it is the actions
performed by the "server" side of the HTTP interface which need to be
grouped in a transaction. Terry's 'container object' technique is
about the only way to do it; in fact it *is* a transaction technique
with the internals of the process exposed to the consumer.
--
\\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith
\\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au
\\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org
\\ end it's only with yourself. \\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801311108.VAA03258>