Gotta love these incredibly informative posts that say nothing but "you're wrong"... 
I didn't say you were wrong - you assumed I did. I was merely pointing out that transactions aren't the only way to do things. Also, it wasn't meant to be informative, as there is a very recent thread in this board that goes into speed of drawing 3d solids if I remember correctly and in there it discusses the open/close paradigm compared with transactions. A search for 'transaction speed' and the first result is the thread I refer to.
Well, you disagreed with what I said. If you don't think that means you said I was wrong, then I think we have another argument like that one about the definition of "is"...
And if you have no desire to be informative, why make the post? If you like uninformative posts, this forum has other topic categories that like that sort of post. Your follow-up post was clear and informative. Why not just make that to start with? Even the one-line response Kerry made is more informative than what you said.
I agree that I could've worded my statement better. I was merely thinking about what I've seen other new .NET programmers do, and try and modify entities outside of a transaction, which is actively bad. And for most usages, there is no point in using Open/Close instead of a transaction, so I had basically forgotten about it. But if you wanted to clarify my omission, it would have been nice if you had simply done so, rather than making an uninformative post that said nothing but "No you don't."
Sorry. You just triggered one of my pet peeves. I see that sort of thing a lot on the DGs, and usually let it go by unchallenged, but it still annoys the hell out of me. Probably should've let it go by unchallenged this time, too....
