On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Michael Kerrin wrote:
Hi Gary,
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 15:33, Gary Poster wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Michael Kerrin wrote:
so it doesn't get to the locking tests (which will fail) but this
is good
thing to aim at :-)
Hey Michael. What are you planning to do with the locking stuff?
I'd like to see zope.locking (http://svn.zope.org/zope.locking/)
used, rather than zope.app.locking. It learns from zope.app.locking
while also addressing some issues and adding some features. I don't
have time to do much about proposing it and integrating it, though.
Maybe I can squeeze in a bit next week or week after.
Brillant - Locking is next on my hit list, and I am planing on using
zope.locking to improve the current implementation.
Cool.
I have an issue with
zope.locking on a collection with infinite depth but I am planing
on ignoring
this use case for the moment and get the rest of the locking
working without
any infinite depth support[...]
Any ideas on this?, is it feasible or not within zope.locking?
It seems reasonable, I think. I'd prefer to do it with some code on
top of zope.locking--within the webdav package, for instance--but am
not totally opposed to pushing it down into zope.locking.
The basic idea would be that webdav would use a special kind of lock
token that marked an infinite depth lock (maybe even just directly
providing an interface on the existing lock tokens) whenever you
wanted to make an infinite depth lock. Then webdav asking "are you
locked?" for a given object would need to not only ask the object but
also walk up the parents to ask each of them if they are locked with
an infinite depth token. Since the new spec contemplates "sub
locks"--locks within the infinite lock--it seems to model pretty well.
The only concern I'd have is that making checks like that into a
security policy might be more work than we would want...although the
default security policy collects information from the __parent__s, so
maybe it wouldn't be too bad.
If we did push this down into zope.locking, my current thinking is
that I'd like to have the transitive lock search be some additional
API, maybe in a separate interface, and not modify any of the current
methods.
In terms of code alone, though, this seems very doable, maybe even
simple. :-)
Gary
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
