[Jeremy Hylton]
>> I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put an __del__ method on a
>> Persistent object.
[Dieter Maurer]
> I just read in "cPersistence.c:ghostify":
>
> /* We remove the reference to the just ghosted object that the ring
>* holds. Note that the dictionary of oids->object
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 07:34, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> >I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put an __del__ method on a
> >Persistent object.
>
> I just read in "cPersistence.c:ghostify":
>
> /* We remove the reference to the just ghosted object that the ring
> * holds. Note that the d
Jeremy Hylton wrote at 2003-12-8 15:28 -0500:
>On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 13:17, Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Jeremy Hylton wrote at 2003-12-7 23:01 -0500:
>> >On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 08:15, Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> >> ATT: replacing the cache without clearing it can lead to huge
>> >> memory leaks (everyth
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 16:53, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > We still use ZODB 3.1 and at least there, the cache verification
> > protocol seems quite stupid. We will soon switch to ZODB 3.2
> > and when cache validation still needs minutes, I will need
> > to look into this...
>
> Apparently, the ZEO
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 15:03, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote at 2003-12-13 19:20 -0500:
> > With ZEO, Zope typically restarts in under a second.
>
> Things are much better with you than with us.
>
> Here, it takes at least 6 seconds to reload the hundreds of
> Python modules that mak
Chris McDonough wrote at 2003-12-13 19:20 -0500:
> With ZEO, Zope typically restarts in under a second.
Things are much better with you than with us.
Here, it takes at least 6 seconds to reload the hundreds of
Python modules that make up Zope and it takes minutes to
validate the ZEO client cache.
Tres Seaver wrote at 2003-12-14 09:35 -0500:
> ...
> - ZEO makes ZODB-dependent unit tests run faster (another facet of
>the restart problem). This has been particulary true for testing
>products installed in INSTANCE_HOME, because the machinery for
>stitching together the __path__ of
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 22:10, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> Until following the steps in doc/INSTALL.txt fires up a single ZEO
> server bound to the loopback address and a single ZEO client (with
> authentication on), the vast majority of developer and production
> installations will be ZEO-less. This als
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 22:10, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> Firstly, I've *never* had problems with refresh (as a user of) until
> Zope 2.7 (I only use it on my own products, so I must naturally code
> in a refresh friendly manner). I'm used to developing with autorefresh
> switched on for my products and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/12/2003, at 11:20 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 23:43, Stuart Bishop wrote:
I've just clarified the issue in the collector. We have since found
that
manual product refresh is working, and it is just the automatic
product
ref
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 23:43, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> I've just clarified the issue in the collector. We have since found that
> manual product refresh is working, and it is just the automatic product
> refresh that gives this error.
I don't mean to sound glib (really), but refresh has always cause
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/12/2003, at 5:05 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Then, it is highly likely that the problems in Zope 2.7
has a different cause.
I probably will start working with Zope 2.7 in 2 weeks.
And as refresh is an essential functionality for me,
I will make it w
Stuart Bishop wrote at 2003-12-12 09:05 +1100:
>>> This is not just a 2.8 issue - the behavior is in the 2.7 betas (at
>>> least
>>> up to beta 2 - havn't tested autorefresh with beta 3 yet) as well:
>>>
>>> http://collector.zope.org/Zope/1010
>>>
>>> Manually refreshing works fine, but automat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/12/2003, at 5:50 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Stuart Bishop wrote at 2003-12-10 11:24 +1100:
On 08/12/2003, at 12:15 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Playing with Zope Head (as of 2003-12-04) revealed problems with
refresh.
This is not just a 2.8 issue - th
Stuart Bishop wrote at 2003-12-10 11:24 +1100:
>On 08/12/2003, at 12:15 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
>
>> Playing with Zope Head (as of 2003-12-04) revealed problems with
>> refresh.
>
>This is not just a 2.8 issue - the behavior is in the 2.7 betas (at
>least
>up to beta 2 - havn't tested autorefresh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/2003, at 12:15 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Playing with Zope Head (as of 2003-12-04) revealed problems with
refresh.
This is not just a 2.8 issue - the behavior is in the 2.7 betas (at
least
up to beta 2 - havn't tested autorefresh with beta 3 y
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 13:17, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Jeremy Hylton wrote at 2003-12-7 23:01 -0500:
> >On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 08:15, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> >> ATT: replacing the cache without clearing it can lead to huge
> >> memory leaks (everything in the old cache is leaked!).
> >
> >Without co
Jeremy Hylton wrote at 2003-12-7 23:01 -0500:
>On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 08:15, Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> ATT: replacing the cache without clearing it can lead to huge
>> memory leaks (everything in the old cache is leaked!).
>
>Without commenting on the rest of the bug report, I should mention that
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 08:15, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> ATT: replacing the cache without clearing it can lead to huge
> memory leaks (everything in the old cache is leaked!).
Without commenting on the rest of the bug report, I should mention that
caches and persistent objects all participate in cy
Playing with Zope Head (as of 2003-12-04) revealed problems with
refresh.
I see varying behaviour refreshing "CMFCore":
* Refresh is not effective (objects continue the have the old
behavior)
* After a while, "commit" reports an exception
"ValueError: Cache values may only be in
20 matches
Mail list logo
