I'd like to cast my vote against implementing something as core as Storage in C, as that hinders web2py's support for PyPy and other alternate runtimes that don't play nice with C modules.
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:15:45 PM UTC-4, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > > Some more info.... the issue page claims this issue is fixed in pyhton > 2.7.3 but my tests and Michele's test revealed it is not in fact fixed. > > I changed trunk gain: > - reverted all improvements to dal.py except for lazy tables > - made the improvement to Storage conditional (it detects the bugs and > uses the fast or the slow version accordingly). > > Problem is that I am not aware of a python version without the bug (2.7.3 > is the latest in 2.x and has it). > > We will try look for other solutions but this does not look good. > > There is one more option... implement our own Storage from scratch using > the C-API. I am sure we can make it very fast and meet our needs. I do not > have enough experience with this but I will try look into it. Will not > happen in web2py 2.0. > > Massimo > > On Wednesday, 22 August 2012 11:50:49 UTC-5, LightDot wrote: >> >> There are many hosting companies that won't upgrade OS provided python >> versions for the lifetime of a server. Good luck requesting a python >> upgrade on a Red Hat / CentOS / Scientific Linux server, this simply won't >> happen. >> >> This is the situation at the moment: >> >> RHEL 6: python 2.6.5 >> Debian 6: python 2.6.6 >> Ubuntu 10.4 LTS: python 2.6.5 >> Ubuntu 12.4 LTS: python 2.7.3 >> >> The proper way to handle such a change would be to make this feature >> optional and file bug reports with all linux distributions that use python >> < 2.7.3 at the same time. I'm sure Red Hat would backport this into RHEL 6, >> which takes care of CentOS, SL and others. Can't say about Debian or >> Ubuntu, but I don't see why not at least try. >> >> But, should these kind of major changes even be considered on the eve of >> the new release..? >> >> Regards, >> Ales >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:22:06 PM UTC+2, Khalil KHAMLICHI wrote: >>> >>> if we go back the future will not wait for us, and we will become >>> obsolete. >>> Python versions are easy to manage on absolutely any platform or OS, I >>> say we keep it. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If we can't fix the memory leak, can we at least have the code detect >>>> the Python version and use the faster Storage in case >= 2.7.3, or are >>>> there too many places where code would need to change to make that >>>> practical? >>>> >>>> Anthony >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:28:59 AM UTC-4, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We run into a major problem. The Storage improvements in trunk cause a >>>>> memory leak. >>>>> This is a python bug and it was discovered in 2006.: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://bugs.python.org/**issue1469629<http://bugs.python.org/issue1469629> >>>>> >>>>> Apparently this was only fixed in python 3.2 and python 2.7.3. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what to do but at the moment I do not see any solution than >>>>> removing the improvements. >>>>> >>>>> massimo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, 22 August 2012 01:44:44 UTC-5, Johann Spies wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope that web2py 2.0 will not be released without these >>>>>> improvements even if it means that testing it will delay the release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to the developers for their initiatives and ingenuity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Johann >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself, >>>>>> my lips will praise you. (Psalm 63:3) >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --
