Carl, Thats application settings which are stored in a db (thus dbsettings - with no space). See http://code.google.com/p/django-values/ for more info.
Marty, I have not yet used your app (although I had intended to until I read this) so I assumed you had worked this out already. The thing is, if each process has to look to a central location to retrieve/update, why not use the db as that central location? Perhaps the way to go is to have an option to turn caching on or off. Then, when deployed, the user could use one of a few pluggable backends (your current implementation, memcached, etc) to get caching to work. That way, in the simple case, caching is turned off and it's not an issue. In the more complex cases, the user can choose the caching mechanism that he can provide the dependencies for if need be. On 6/26/07, Carl Karsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marty Alchin wrote: > > I expect this isn't the best way to ask this, but this is where the > > dbsettings saga has played out so far, and you guys have a good idea > > of what I'm trying to do, so I'm asking anyway. > > > > The biggest hurdle to dbsettings at this point is that it caches > > settings in a standard Python module, which only exists within a > > single process. This was all well and good while developing it, but > > people are now starting to try it under mod_python, which (depending > > on the Apache MPM) creates multiple processes, each with their own > > dbsettings cache. This is fine except when editing settings, since it > > can only update the cache in the current process. > > > > I did a bit of research on this topic, and it seems to be a fairly > > prickly issue. I obviously can't restrict people to mpm-winnt[1], so > > something would have to be done as part of the application. I > > considered simply requiring projects to use Django's cache framework, > > but the only backend that would really do the job is memcached, and > > that again adds another dependency for what should be a simple > > application. > > > > I considered locmem, but as far as I can tell, that's just a > > thread-safe version of simple, so it still doesn't share memory across > > processes. I've also found information on POSH[2] and ZODB[3], but I > > really don't like the idea of relying on yet another dependency for > > this. I'll probably look into both of those to see if there's anything > > generic I can pull out though. > > > > Has anybody on here ever had a need to do something like this? If so, > > are there other decent solutions available? > > > > -Gul > > > > [1] http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-August/021939.html > > [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/poshmodule/ > > [3] http://www.zope.org/Products/ZODB3.2 > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but this doesn't seem like a problem that will come up > too > often, so the solution is going to be pretty custom. > > Why would you be changing db settings on the fly? > > Carl K > > > > > -- ---- Waylan Limberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
