Re: Change commitment control after compilation

On 12/19/2013 3:24 PM, D*B wrote:

<Buck>
My example used L1 as the transaction boundary.
</Buck>
... if this is your point of view (it mind be appropriate for your needs),

I am so sorry that I wasn't clear in the beginning. I jumped into this
thread because there was an earlier comment... well here it is:

To use commitment control without causing major potential
issues, requires that the entire application be designed
for commitment control. sadly, most applications are a
mix of legacy which does not use commitment control
and new code which may use it, but *very* carefully,.

... and the response was:

that's simply not true!!! just seperate both parts
by activation group and start your commit definition
with Activation group scope

I'm very interested in your opinion, but I didn't understand it in the
context of an old, existing program base. So I gave an example of an
old program I actually work with to start the discussion.

@Henrik: thats one of the posts, thinking about wasting of time. I'm not so much interested in this 99% (maybe less of them), the rest might be more improtent to me ( must not ne your point of interest!!!)

...and I think I now understand! Your context wasn't so much trying to
retrofit commitment control into an existing application, but applying
it to new new programs which interface with the old code. In these
cases, I think it is easier to implement commitment control. The thing
to remember is that we need to think of the code itself a bit
differently than we did in the old days. I think that the more modern
the application, the easier it is to use CC.

Have a nice day (night in germany)

Guten Nacht mein Freund.
--cbuk