On Monday, October 7, 2013 8:27:34 PM UTC-4, Klauss wrote:
>
> 3- open a single request-scope session, and carry it through your async
> tasks.
I left that out, because it brings up the problem where your long-running
session blocks the database (via transactions) or if you're in some
'auto
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> so the popular workaround(s) are to do both:
>
> 1- defer to thread (which most people would do anyways)
> 2- open/close multiple sessions (which are cheap). basically , instead of
> approaching a "task" in twisted as a single action of m
>From my understanding, this should be safe with Twisted:
- SqlAlchemy "engine" operations, where you don't use the ORM and
encapsulate every ansync "chunk" in a transaction, and within a thread
- SqlAlchemy "orm" operations, where every async "chunk" is encapsulated in
it's own session, and wit
Thanks guys. Jonathan, that is, I think, what will be going on.
So, I'm not quite clear from your comments, using SQLAlchemy with Twisted
is practical now or not? Is it better to do it with Twisted than with
Gevent?
If you have the time to explain further about the persisting the session
comment
Also, a decent strategy to use is this:
a) Your client does a lot of business logic in Pyramid. When you need to
bill you hit an internal API or create a celery task
b) You render a "waiting" page, and have ajax, or refresh, check to see if
the internal API , or celery, is done processing
c)
So the "No SqlAlchemy with Twisted" approach is dated.
>
>
I've been on the twisted list for a while, and recently asked it -- as i
have a bit of stuff for the same project running in twisted as-well-as
pyramid and-also celery.
The current consensus is that it's a general no-go/bad-idea if you'r
