Hi Ross, Il giorno mer, 29/03/2006 alle 16.24 -0800, Ross Boylan ha scritto: > > By the way, the only (standard) reason to have an old sandbox instance > > is a broken installation of the package (or a manually created one). > > That puzzles me. Doesn't the installation of the package create the > sandbox instance? I thought that was the whole point. So this means > that whenever you upgrade the package you have an already existing > instance.
No, read again: "a broken installation of the package (which is your case) or a manually created instance without data". If you upgrade the package, it should be smart enough to check if the instance has been already created. > Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "old" sandbox. I'm > interpreting it as meaning "the sandbox created by an earlier version > of zope3-sandbox." The "new" one is the one the current version being > installed wants to create. No, you are wrong. With "old" sandbox I mean a broken instance without data. When you create a zope instance, it contains no data untill you start it the first time. Note that the package automatically starts the instance after the creation, so a working zope-sandbox's instance without data is something which won't exist. > One of my concerns is that if you install the package (zope3-sandbox) > and later upgrade it, without touching the defaults, it should "just > work." I think that's hard to achieve here. If you refuse to > upgrade, you get the problem seen here. If you delete the old > instance, you may delete some working data, the concern you have in > mind. You could create a new instance, e.g., sandbox2, but the > proliferation of instances doesn't seem very desirable either. sandbox package upgrades without problem, AFAIK. > Can an existing instance be upgraded in place? It hasn't to be upgraded at all, all the source code is external to the instance. > I don't follow why ZEO vs ZODB matters. Every instance has a > database, I think. I also think the database would have something in > it, even if the user hadn't added anything. You are wrong: zope-sandbox's instances are *with data*, because they use ZODB, but the user could have created by hand a his own instance called sandbox which is without data, because it uses ZEO, and this is why that 'abort' is there. > Better errors would be a big help. > [...] > Thanks for the tip. That might be good to put in the error message, > or README.Debian. I'll include that with the next upload. > If it were possible to identify cases in which the user hadn't done > anything, I think it would be reasonable to blow them away silently. > As I've said, I'm not sure how that could be done. Maybe something as > crude as storing the time-stamp of the database file immediately after > setup would do. I'm not sure if there could be changes (e.g., product > installations) that didn't affect the database.... I have no idea on how this could be achieved. > > Thanks for your suggestion, > > > Thanks for you work on the package, and for taking the time to explain > things to me. You're welcome, and sorry if my english isn't good enough to explain you what the facts are. :) -- Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .''`. Proud Debian GNU/Linux developer, admin and user. : :' : `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~kobold/ `- _____________________________________________________________________ 1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564
signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio รจ firmata