Skip to content

Feature: async transaction scope support #8227

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

huer12
Copy link

@huer12 huer12 commented Apr 3, 2025

As suggested in #5629

I added a version for a async ITransactionScope

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Apr 3, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@michaelstaib
Copy link
Member

Hey there,

thank you for contributing.

The change you are proposing is a major change to Hot Chocolate and cannot be included into Hot Chocolate 15 or earlier. I am also wondering if we should even have this scope formalized in the first place. It might be better to remove it with 16 and rework the pipeline in a way that such a feature can be easily added by users them selfs.

In any case, I converted this PR to a draft and it will take a while before we look at it as we are at the moment working on the foundations of 16, we have not yet started looking at the request execution pipeline itself. I think after August most of the foundation pieces will be in place and the core team will have some time to discuss transaction scopes.

@michaelstaib michaelstaib marked this pull request as draft April 18, 2025 21:37
@michaelstaib michaelstaib added this to the HC-16.0.0 milestone Apr 18, 2025
@huer12
Copy link
Author

huer12 commented Apr 19, 2025

Hi
I do agree, that it may would make sense to rework the pipeline, but I do not understand why it is a major change. I made t in a non breaking way. Therefore it would not be a problem to add it to version 15.
I would appreciate if you would have look at it again. It would be important for us to have this feature sooner.

@michaelstaib
Copy link
Member

OK, It looked as if you replaced it completely but instead you added to it. I only skimmed over it...

In any case we will not do an change on this in 15 and will have as I pointed out a look at this whole thing with V16 which is coming this year. I do not want to introduce something that we actually want to do differently.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants