the packages in CVS
and add a suitable log entry to tell people where things are.
jens
On 23 Apr 2006, at 12:10, Chris McDonough wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't paying attention here.
Moving these things is fine by me, I just currently don't have the
time to expend any effort on it. If somebody wants
-1... Five 1.2 has quite a few differences from Five 1.0 that would
stop products written for Five 1.0 from working properly. I've not
gone to 2.9 on a few projects for this reason (sticking with 2.8).
2.9 is where the new version belongs, IMO.
- C
On Mar 27, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Andreas
These are warnings coming from GCC (as opposed to errors, which would
prevent compilation from finishing).
GCC 4.X emits these pointer signedness warnings whereas earlier GCC
versions did not. This issue has been fixed on the Zope trunk, I
believe (the codebase which will become Zope
production
ready.
:-) I was hoping that the experiment had been taken a bit further.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Chris McDonough wrote:
Only minimally, AFAIK. A sprint in 2004 had this as the topic:
http://www.zope.org/Members/adytumsolutions/pycon2004/TwistedZope
- C
On Mar 15, 2006, at 8:38
Only minimally, AFAIK. A sprint in 2004 had this as the topic:
http://www.zope.org/Members/adytumsolutions/pycon2004/TwistedZope
- C
On Mar 15, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
I know Twisted is used in the Zope 3 space. Has anyone
experimented with
replacing ZServer? A quick
I'm not entirely sure what this code is. But I've never used it or
seen anyone else use it. I suspect it can go.
- C
On Mar 14, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
lib/python/App/Product.py contains code that deals *somehow* with
distributions (whatever this means). Does any one know
I doubt this will break a significant amount of code. The
restriction was removed 5 months ago and AFAICS it was removed to
allow email addresses as IDs. That use case will not be broken if
we disallow again IDs starting with '@'.
It seems that you can reasonably easily apply the @
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and
how to fix it.
And I'm not concerned about people like you who monkeypatch that
code. You know that monkeypatching is always
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and how
to fix it.
And I'm not concerned about people like you who monkeypatch that
code. You know that monkeypatching is always on your own risk and
you know how to modify your monkey
yuppie wrote:
Zope 2 doesn't allow '+' in content IDs (actually the error message says
the ID contains characters illegal in URLs), but you can use content IDs
like '@@edit.html'. If the lookup order is changed as proposed
(http://codespeak.net/pipermail/z3-five/2006q1/001186.html) this
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 02:46 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Here's what we could do: We factor the name validation part in ObjectManager
(which is _checkId) out to a namechooser adapter. Five already has one in
Five.browser.adding. Then, we can also provide an optional namechooser
On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Jake wrote:
I think it is a huge mistake to lose Zope branding. After years of
building up momentum behind a project, to head off into some
strange developer code speak is just going to lose people who are
not intimately involved.
The world, after many years,
Hire a consultant.
- C
On Mar 7, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Meir Livneh wrote:
Guys
I am required to interface with the following systems:
Hummingbird DM
Hummingbird RM
Documentum RM
OpenText Livelink
Crystal Enterprise Pro
Any ideas?
Meir Livneh
On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Max M wrote:
Splitting up Zope to let people use seperate pieces of Zope aka Zed
is not a valid reason. Good software practise is a valid reason.
But catering for those few developers that wants to use just a few
pieces is probably not worth the effort.
Here's
Log message for revision 65541:
We don't need to do any real input processing if we are handling a PUT
request because in practice, the body is never mime-encoded. This is an
optimization especially because FieldStorage creates an additional tempfile if
we allow it to parse the body, and PUT
Log message for revision 65542:
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt
===
--- Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt 2006-02-27 22:27:29 UTC (rev 65541)
+++ Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt 2006-02-27
Log message for revision 65553:
Revert changes made in revision 65541 in favor of moving them to the
blob-integration-test branch for eventual merge.
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt
U Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPRequest.py
U
Log message for revision 65554:
We don't need to do any real input processing if we are handling a PUT
request because in practice, the body is never mime-encoded. This is an
optimization especially because FieldStorage creates an additional tempfile if
we allow it to parse the body, and PUT
I dunno about sucking because they are quite good for documentation,
but I tend to write plain-old unittests instead of doctests when I'm
testing without any pretense towards writing documentation. If you
test internals of a class in a doctest, the doctest body gets pretty
cluttered,
On Feb 23, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Benji York wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I dunno about sucking because they are quite good for
documentation, but I tend to write plain-old unittests instead of
doctests when I'm testing without any pretense towards writing
documentation. If you test
On Feb 23, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Benji York wrote:
But it's of course a judgment call.
Perhaps this is just one of those to-each-his-own things. shrug
My own are doctests. ;)
Sure. I actually really appreciate reading good doctests, they help
a lot, and they beat not having any docs at all
On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not requiring
all tests
to be doctests.
If the ZSCP thing takes off, I think test/doc req'ts should be
somewhat looser than mandating a particular test/doc framework
(something along
I hate to cross-post this, but would it be possible to limit this
discussion to a single list (e.g. zope3-dev, maybe)? I'm interested
in this topic, but my mail client isn't smart enough to filter it out
to only one place and I'm sure there are a lot of other people with
the same issue.
Apache does its own buffering IIRC. Look for ProxyReceiveBufferSize/
ProxyIOBufferSize.
On Feb 18, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Christoph Berendes wrote:
To prevent browser timeout during a long running process, I've got
the following code to work nicely,when the browser accesses Zope
directly
Kudos for releasing these packages -- they all look interesting and
potentially useful.
Agreed, bravo!!
- C
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related
On Feb 3, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
If I were in your shoes the first thing I'd do is bump up the log
levels
on both zope and zeo to BLATHER. Adds overhead I know, but you
need to find
the problem somehow... it's a weird one, I've never seen zope
restart for no reason.
This
This little bit of code has some clues:
def put(self, code, t, desc):
if code not in ('A', 'B', 'I', 'E'):
raise unknown request code %s % code
if code == 'B':
self.start = t
self.method, self.url = desc.strip().split()
elif code ==
If you're developing at the Python Product level (rather than at
the through the web level), this blob product might help:
http://www.plope.com/software/blob
On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
Hi,
In order to learn developping for Zope, I want to learn manipulate
Hi Francisco,
This may not be what you *want* to read ;-), but this is how I (and
many others) do it:
http://www.plope.com/Members/chrism/zope_collab
- C
On Dec 23, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Francisco Chamorro wrote:
Hi everyone, I have a process question and wanted to know what
tools are
On Dec 22, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Dezember 2005 16:41:37 -0500 Chris McDonough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
But I'm not sure I understand you.
Are you saying that in order to use Basket, my product can't call
I'm looking for opinions here..
The next major Zope 2 release and perhaps the next major Zope 3
release will support the loading of packages and (for Zope 2)
Products from Python Egg files. See http://peak.telecommunity.com/
DevCenter/PythonEggs for an overview.
This provides the
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm looking for opinions here..
The progenitor of Eggs (Phillip Eby) suggests that this is too
implicit. He suggests instead that people who install packages
should
use a program which implicitly installs
AFAIK, there is no Data.fs.in file anymore and the OFS.Application
logic creates all the objects it needs at startup time.
Quickstart text is in lib/python/App/dtml/zope_quick_start.dtml (it's
not read from ZODB at all).
- C
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:26 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Does anyone
That's fine. It moved to plope.com because it was under pretty heavy
development and zope.org was (and probably still is) too slow to be
responsive when lots of writes were done. IIRC its DAV was broken
too. It's not under development at all anymore, so it can move back,
at least until
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 09:09:02 -0500 Chris McDonough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is this: do you think there should be an explicit
install
step for egg packages/Products or do you think it should be
possible to
just put
The next tick will happen regardless, because handle invokes a
publisher thread (it doesn't block).
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
What happens if the request started by clockserver takes a long
time or hangs?
Will the next tick start a new one anyway, or will it be
Forwarding to the list for chewing... ;-)
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 10:08 AM 12/22/2005 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
The progenitor of Eggs (Phillip Eby) suggests that this is too
implicit. He suggests instead that people who install packages
should use
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Rocky Burt wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
The question is this: do you think there should be an explicit
install step for egg packages/Products or do you think it should be
possible to just put eggs on your PYTHONPATH (and perhaps adjust a
config file
sqlite is public domain code, FWIW. I doubt this is incompatible
with the ZPL. It would just require an acknowledgement from ZC that
it's safe to be included in a Zope distro.
- C
On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Rocky Burt wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 11:42:30 -0330
@@
+##
+#
+# Copyright (c) 2005 Chris McDonough. All Rights Reserved.
+#
+# This software is subject to the provisions of the Zope Public License,
+# Version 2.1 (ZPL). A copy of the ZPL should accompany this distribution.
+# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND ANY
Log message for revision 40961:
Fix test breakage caused by a nonuptodate test_config in initial branch.
Changed:
U
Zope/branches/chrism-clockserver-merge/lib/python/ZServer/tests/test_clockserver.py
U
Zope/branches/chrism-clockserver-merge/lib/python/ZServer/tests/test_config.py
Log message for revision 40966:
Fix breakage on Windows due to misuse of os.path (use posixpath instead).
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZServer/ClockServer.py
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/lib/python/ZServer/ClockServer.py
Hmmm... I *think* I just fixed this.
On Dec 21, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
[Tim Peters]
...
Failure in test test_checkPermission_proxy_roles_limit_access
(AccessControl.tests.testZopeSecurityPolicy.C_ZSPTests)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File c:\python24\lib\unittest.py,
Write conflicts happen for a transaction. In Zope, there is one
transaction per request.
There are two distinct sections to the navigation_box transaction.
There's a transaction for something named navigation_box? Is this
an IFRAME?
One
where the session variables are read and a
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Thanks again Chris for the helpful comments.
The navigation_box, in this context is just a table which is rendered
into a frame in our standard frameset. It is not an iframe.
So you do use frames! That's a huge clue. I wish I didn't feel
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Chris,
You asked about frames a while back and I responded in the
affirmative.
I am sure I mentioned that we use frames and framesets and
explained that
we use a bit of Javascript to manage loading individual frames
rather than
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Chris W,
The issue here has had to do with session variables and their
iteraction
with the persistence mechanism and conflicts and multiple threads
for the
same session. Chris McDonough has pointed out that session
variables can
cause
On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Sorry if I appeared unresponsive--the fact that we use frames is
hardly a
secret. I suppose that it would be helpful to make up soem
summary of
features for ongoing threads like this one.
It was a secret to me (again, perhaps because of
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
I have begun to think that the Zope session variable mechanism, as
implemented, addresses a different part of the storage spectrum
than we
need. A small number of per user parameters (3 to 10) are used by
almost
every request. Most of the
On Dec 20, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Dennis Allison wrote:
The interaction between sessions, conflicts, and persistence is a bit
confusing. I am still trying to understand the code in depth.
One thing is for sure, request.SESSION and/or request['SESSION']
must be
persistent for things to work.
+1 on all.
On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:52 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
for next release we plan to replace several parts with the
corresponding components from Zope 3 (e.g. ZPT´). Philipp is
working on a proposal on that issue. In addition I would like to
get rid of some old stuff that is no
On Dec 20, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Paul Winkler wrote:
- HelpSys - from a programmers view pretty much useless and not very
helpful. I consider to replace it with something more useful
(not sure
we can re-use apidoc from Zope 3 in some way, perhaps the inclusion
of Dieter's Docfinder
On Dec 20, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Speaking of eggs, could you please add this to the 2.10 wiki? :-)
Done...
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML
On Dec 20, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
If so, the question then becomes: timetable and plan for deprecating
HelpSys. I don't think we can simply rip out registerHelp() in 2.10
unless we have deprecation warnings in 2.9; and a useful deprecation
warning requires something in place we
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
But I'm not sure I understand you.
Are you saying that in order to use Basket, my product can't call
registerHelp()?
Or are you saying that when installed via Basket, registerHelp()
does nothing? That's fine.
Yep, the latter currently...
Trimmed Zope-dev from this (cross-posts are bad)...
Dennis,
Lets just put the question out there: Does:
SESSION['someKey'] = someValue
Force a commited transaction?
As opposed to ...
someDict = Session['SomeKey']
someDict['aKey'] = 'aNewValue'
Neither forces a committed transaction, but
The structure of the method is simple enough: there is a large
dtml-let
block which populates local variables with data from the session
variables
dtml-let foobar=getSessionVariable('foobar')
...
with the body of the dtml-let containing 300 lines or so of dtml,
You might have a access rule in there that expects to be able to call
something that's missing?
On Dec 19, 2005, at 4:29 AM, Maciej Wisniowski wrote:
Hi!
After upgrading our Zope instances from Zope 2.7.2 to 2.8.4 we've
noticed
new kind of errors in event.log on one of our servers. Error
I don't understand the problem. How is using XML-RPC incompatible
with persistence? What are you trying to exclude?
- C
On Dec 16, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Jan-Ole Esleben wrote:
Thanks; this is a problem we are well aware of. Our solution is to
increase the amount of workers, obviously.
On Dec 16, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Jan-Ole Esleben wrote:
I don't understand the problem. How is using XML-RPC incompatible
with persistence? What are you trying to exclude?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand _that_ question. What am I trying to
_exclude_?
You said:
it would most certainly be
The problem setup is this; I explained it above, but it this has
become a long thread:
I write a ZOPE product. I want to make use of other software on the
internet and the services that software provides. So I use the methods
exposed by that software via SOAP, XML-RPC, whatever.
One of those
Code would be good.
Note that changing the transientobject conflict resolution algorithm
won't get rid of all write conflict errors, because the BTree-based
indexes in the transient object container will still conflict during
a bucket split and other situations that I can't exactly recall
Trimmed zodb-dev off the cc list.
On Dec 15, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
The systems are running a Zope/ZEO combination with a store
configuration
of:
#
zodb_db temporary
# Temporary storage database (for sessions)
temporarystorage
name temporary storage for
Looks good!
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
I would like to merge this patch to all the branches back to Zope 2.7,
anyone would care to review or is against it?
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1976
--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems, LLC.
http://enfoldsystems.com
There is nothing that needs to be done here. It's only if you
*mutate* values stored in the session that you need to do explicit
persistence triggering. I provided an example of doing this in my
last email.
- C
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Chris McDonnough
session variables. What I want to be able to do is have the coders
call
getSessionVariable(name)
to get the current value of the session variable and
setSessionVariable(name, value)
to save the value. The type of the variable should be transparent
to the
programmer--that
FYI: These tests appear to be failing due to a race in the tests
they're exercising that could be exposed if the machine was under
heavy load or just particularly slow.
On Dec 14, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Zope tests summarizer wrote:
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Dec 13
haven't seen it yet: Chris McDonough has a
transcript of this morning's chat up at:
http://plope.com/Members/chrism/foundation_dec9
BTW, I'm sorry I couldn't make it this morning: I was waiting to
board
a plane in Birmingham.
Tres
On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Chris McDonough wrote:
The problem I am trying to resolve appears to be load related. The
observed symptom is that (some) session variables spontaneously
disappear.
There appears to be some connection to conflicts
On Dec 3, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 3 Dec 2005, at 15:57, Paul Winkler wrote:
One thought that occurs to me is to replace httplib.HTTPConnection
with
a mock object of some sort that allows easy verification of its
input.
So we assume that httplib works, as a proper unit
I initially gave Florent's proposal a +1 because frankly I'm kinda
sick of answering people's questions about conflict errors (this
deserves some treatment in docs actually). But I do agree that it is
useful to be able to see conflict errors in non-blather logs when you
*do* know what
On Dec 2, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Please vote for the level at which you want to log retried conflict
errors. These are the ConflictErrors that aren't returned to the
user but automatically retried by the Zope publisher.
1. Do you want these ConflictErrors retried logs
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Paul Winkler wrote:
You know, some days I wonder why it is that Zope is the
only framework around that needs to distinguish between
trusted and untrusted code. Nobody else seems to be
looking at us with envy in this regard.
Historically I know it was because there was
+1
On Dec 1, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
I've improved the logging of ConflictError in Zope 2.9 and trunk.
http://svn.zope.org/?rev=40454view=rev
Now you'll get two things:
- logs at level BLATHER for each conflict, but it may be retried
- log at level ERROR when the conflict
Is anyone against removing that assertion?
- -1. Asserts only affect debug mode, anyway, which means that
they help
find problems.
FWIW, this is not true. Asserts happen outside of debug mode unless
you've compiled somehow to .pyo's.
___
So far I have not had any success with anything else than writing
special methods in my Classes that converts the objects to
dictionaries before passing them to the zpt or Script(Python) in
question.
But that feels like a very awkward way of doing things, and it
makeas it *very*
On Nov 27, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
here to begin to track this one down. The failure
is spontaneous and apparently not triggered by any readily
distinguishable
inputs or pattern of inputs. The behavior smells a bit of resource
limits
or process synchronization problems,
Does this mean that you haven't seen the errors since installing
Andy's patch? If not, I'd declare victory and forget about using the
deadlock debugger (unless you want to do it for learning purposes only).
On Nov 27, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Just went throught that
Chris,
A helpful suggestion. The commit errors I've been seeing have to
do with the intereaction of the ZODB, MySQL, session variables, and
conflicts.
So the patch that Andy sent over is a fix that prevents the mysql
adapter from raising an error when a conflict exception occurs? Do
you
On Nov 25, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Patrick Gerken wrote:
2005/11/24, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Interestingly, you can raise things that don't subclass Exception in
python. This was discussed before, and I firmly agree with, that zodb
conflicts should _not_ sublcass exception. That way,
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I
remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of
Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its
codebase.
I was one of these people. Since
On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:42 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote:
- There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the
Z3 community to backwards compatibility as
there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where
he says I have made
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 04:56 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to
move forward
beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's
great, but I
don't think everyone is in that fortunate
Note that Zope likely started. Did it? Did you try zopectl stop and
zopectl start again? If so, did it work?
- C
On Nov 22, 2005, at 9:52 AM, michael nt milne wrote:
Hi
My zopeinstance went down and I was getting an 'upstream server'
unknown message from apache. On restarting zope
, at 10:57 AM, michael nt milne wrote:
Yes, I noticed that the deamon wasn't running and so re-started it.
It started up fine but that was the message I received. Just
wondered what happened etc..
On 11/22/05, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that
Zope likely started. Did
On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
At Tuesday 22/11/2005 05:50, Jürgen Herrmann wrote:
one more question (to the public!):
do we REALLY need dates 1900 / 2036 ? using unix timestamps for
storage and as the base for all conversions would make things a lot
easier!
Sure.
On Nov 21, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Conflicts and how they interact with the database and sessioning
machinery
is my hot button right at the moment )-: I Hope I have not
included too much information.
I ran a quick report and we see about 1000 conflicts per hour at
about
These are order of magnitude numbers and are
highly variable. The 1% number is way bigger than I am
comfortable with
although I have no basis to scale my expectations. I'd be much
happier were
it a couple of orders of magnitude smaller.
I would be too. It's considerably difficult when
On Nov 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
[Intended for zope-dev actually...]
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Ok I got to the reasons for that, it all dates back to the origins of
SecurityInfo in December 2000 when it originally had methods that did
the work of both declareProtected and
Hi Dennis,
I notice that line 389 of db.py of the most recent ZMySQLDA (2.0.8)
doesn't match the traceback you show. No mutex locking at all is
done in the 2.0.8 version of that module (or any other module in that
product). Are you using an older version?
- C
On Nov 20, 2005, at 9:57
that is.
On Nov 20, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Hi Dennis,
I notice that line 389 of db.py of the most recent ZMySQLDA (2.0.8)
doesn't match the traceback you show. No mutex locking at all is
done in the 2.0.8 version of that module (or any other module in
that product
On Nov 20, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
The structure of the naviagation method is simple enough.
Everything is
wrapped in a dtml-let which sets a number of parameters mostly by
reading them from the SESSION (with an interface function) or plucking
them from the relational
Hi Pablo,
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 22:47 -0300, Pablo Ziliani wrote:
Unfortunately, my Zope instance holds multiples virtual sites, so I
can't simply change the root BMI that comes with Zope's installation;
instead I need to create inner BMI instances. So I did, giving the new
instance a
storage in
favor of a local temp storage. That should make things a bit better.
Good idea...
- C
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Chris McDonough wrote:
Changing the architecture will likely get you the most bang but note
also that there are a few knobs that you can turn on the transient
object
On Nov 16, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Chris,
I am aware that using ZEO to back session database is likely to
increase
the opportunity for conflicts, but using a single session database
seems
to be reaquired if you want, as we do, to distribute out interactive
application
may need to rethink this
simplistic architecture.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 15, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Has anyone prepared a set of best practice guidelines on the
techniques to
use to minimize conflicts?
It is becoming clear that we need to do
On Nov 15, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
Has anyone prepared a set of best practice guidelines on the
techniques to
use to minimize conflicts?
It is becoming clear that we need to do to refactor some of our
code to
get us out of our current conflict pickle.
A quick google
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Dennis Allison wrote:
ZEO 3.4.2
Zope 2.8.4
ZODB 3.4.2 as relesed with Zope 2.8.4B
Python 2.4.2 or 2.3.5
MySQL 4.0.20
MySQL-Python 1.2.0
MYSQLDA 2.0.9
We have just moved from Zope 2.7.6 to Zope 2.8.4 motivated, in
part, but
the ability to avoid read conflicts
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
I appreciate that you were trying to help.
I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
svn delete should solve that problem :-)
Of course the
401 - 500 of 1687 matches
Mail list logo
