> So SOPs are here to stay for now but nobody thinks they're ideal. The > trouble is, we don't know what would be better.
I understand that pylons 1.0 will be breaking backwards compatibility. That might be a good time to look at what might be a better option. If 98% of cases are served by threadlocals, that might be the way to go. It's rarely wise to introduce this kind of complexity for 2% of the use cases. Of course, there's also the possibility that SOPs aren't that complicated and the problem is really that nobody knows how to deal with them. The documentation for SOPs is somewhat lackluster; the API is described in the paste docs, but not the motivation or concepts. In the end, there is no technical reason why a program should not be able to access an SOP from anywhere. What I would like to see is a way of registering a thread to access the SOP that another thread is refering to. This obviously isn't safe, and shouldn't be the default, but for testing it's quite valuable to be able to access SOPs that were registered to a thread that is not your own. Justin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
