It interests me! ;-) I haven't had time to look at the resources you posted, though...
Dieter also sent me a different transient object container implementation before which has better conflict avoidance. I have not been able to look at that either. :-( Guh. (We either need an internal project to fail miserably due to conflict errors, or I need to stop playing MechAssault on the Xbox so much after work and get back to coding after work. ;-) - C On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 10:06, Shane Hathaway wrote: > I hear only crickets. I said we can avoid nearly all conflicts in > sessions. Does this not interest anyone? > > Shane Hathaway wrote: > > A while ago I experimented with ways to prevent conflict errors from > > reaching the application. ZODB has matured since then and it should now > > be possible to make a Connection class that resolves conflicts > > internally rather than propagate them to the application--as long as the > > application follows certain rules. Should we consider finishing that > > effort? > > > > Relevant URLs: > > > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/zodbex/zodbex/Shield > > http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/ArmoredCatalog > _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )