On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 11:06, Shane Hathaway wrote: > I hear only crickets. I said we can avoid nearly all conflicts in > sessions. Does this not interest anyone?
It does interest me, even though I'm not currently suffering from Conflicts. But the discussion seemed a little over my head so I didn't comment. I have some questions though > > 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? What are these rules? what happens if an application doesn't follow them? Do we get Conflicts just like before or are we suddenly bound to make the application follow the rules? > > > > Relevant URLs: > > > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/zodbex/zodbex/Shield > > http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/ArmoredCatalog I read the Shield/README.txt and the ArmoredCatalog proposal, but I'm still a bit lost. Cheers, Leo -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. _______________________________________________ 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 )
