On Thursday 23 October 2003 08:07, Chris Withers wrote: > Toby Dickenson wrote: > > Apart from the most trivial cases, it would allow _v_ attributes to > > disappear at random. Its a similar problem to the one that makes it hard > > to write an optimiser for python code, and I am unconvinced that this is > > sane. > > Which, unfortunately, then leaves us with the problem of how to stop Zope > using up an undeterminable amount of memory...
No, we just exclude objects with _v_ attribute from mid-transaction deactivation. There arent many objects in that category, but they do need protection. But, your proposal means we would improve the situation for transactions that read from an undeterminable number of persistent objects. It does not help for transactions that touch an undeterminable number of non-persistent objects, or transactions that change an undeterminable number of persistent objects. Is the gain big enough to justify the effort? -- Toby Dickenson _______________________________________________ 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 )
