Re: Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Alex Gaynor
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > On 28/03/10 00:01, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> Cache invalidation is a reasonably compelling case for pre-signals; if >> you invalidate a cache on the post-signal, there is a small window >> between having modified the m2m and the cache

Re: Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Andrew Godwin
On 28/03/10 00:01, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: Cache invalidation is a reasonably compelling case for pre-signals; if you invalidate a cache on the post-signal, there is a small window between having modified the m2m and the cache being flushed. In that window, any operation hitting the cache will

Re: Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > On 27/03/10 17:08, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> There are 5 options I can see. >> >> Option 1: Do nothing. #13087 describes a use case we don't want to >> support, so we ignore it. >> > > I think it should be supported; it seems like a re

Re: Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Andrew Badr wrote: > Isn't the overhead of a function call negligible compared to executing > a database query or opening/closing a connection? It is fairly small, especially if there are not signals attached. When signals are attached, it's less trivial. My conc

Re: Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Andrew Godwin
On 27/03/10 17:08, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: There are 5 options I can see. Option 1: Do nothing. #13087 describes a use case we don't want to support, so we ignore it. I think it should be supported; it seems like a reasonable suggestion, and I can see reasons for implementing things th

Re: Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Andrew Badr
Isn't the overhead of a function call negligible compared to executing a database query or opening/closing a connection? On Mar 27, 10:08 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Hi all, > > One of the new features in 1.2 are signals on m2m operations [1]. > > Recently, Ticket #13087 was opened questioni

Opinions sought on m2m signal ordering

2010-03-27 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
Hi all, One of the new features in 1.2 are signals on m2m operations [1]. Recently, Ticket #13087 was opened questioning the order in which m2m signals are sent. I'm calling for any comments or opinions on exactly how this feature should operate before the current behavior is baked into a release

Re: GSoC Project: Enhancedaut.user

2010-03-27 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, d3f3nd3r wrote: > >> Like I said originally - this is a big, hard problem. It's definitely >> a problem worth solving, but because it's a difficult problem, it's >> going to be a lot harder to convince us that you're the right person >> for the job. >> > > So any c

Re: GSoC Project: Enhancedaut.user

2010-03-27 Thread d3f3nd3r
> Like I said originally - this is a big, hard problem. It's definitely > a problem worth solving, but because it's a difficult problem, it's > going to be a lot harder to convince us that you're the right person > for the job. > So any comments or suggestions to my answers in the last post? I do