Re: Session Benchmarks
Jim Gallacher wrote: Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I don't know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default for DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass? Starting with Python 2.3 this module is included in the standard python distribution as its bsddb module. Nick
Re: Session Benchmarks
Nick wrote: Jim Gallacher wrote: Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I don't know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default for DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass? Starting with Python 2.3 this module is included in the standard python distribution as its bsddb module. Are you sure? The docs on python.org indicate otherwise. It would be sweet if bsddb3 was the std module. Jim
Re: Session Benchmarks
Nick wrote: Jim Gallacher wrote: Nick wrote: Jim Gallacher wrote: Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I don't know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default for DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass? Starting with Python 2.3 this module is included in the standard python distribution as its bsddb module. Are you sure? The docs on python.org indicate otherwise. It would be sweet if bsddb3 was the std module. Jim Directly from the Python module documentation: Starting with Python 2.3 the bsddb module requires the Berkeley DB library version 3.2 or later (it is known to work with 3.2 through 4.3 at the time of this writing). I saw that but did not parse it correctly. I just saw 'Legacy Interface' and assumed you would need to grab a different module for the current interface. Whereas the python documention actually says is: The following is a description of the legacy bsddb interface compatible with the old python bsddb module. For details about the more modern Db and DbEnv object oriented interface see the above mentioned pybsddb URL. Mea culpa. Jim
Re: Session Benchmarks
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote: As for the MySQL implementation I'd stay away from anything vendor-specific in mod_python, because then the question becomes why not a postresql, why not oracle, etc. Grisha
Re: Session Benchmarks
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: I was thinking we'd still use the current global locking scheme, but keep the file open between requests. Not sure if this would be robust or just asking for dbm file corruption though. I'm pretty sure it won't work, I think you cannot have a dbm open by more than one process without getting it corrupted. Well of course not. Just a little brain fart on my part. Jim
Re: Session Benchmarks
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: Any objection to just a SqlSession base class? May be - it depends on how complex it becomes. Any attempts I've to generalize SQL/DB stuff tend to become a mess since there are no firm standards in this area, so this just may be something for the contrib (or whatever it ends up being), like Nicolas pointed out. I'm a little concerned about staying focused on closing the last bugs so that we get to a point where a release can be made, since there hasn't been one in such a long time... I was not actually proposing a SqlSession class for 3.2.0. I just want to finish off the last couple of issues of FileSession for this release, and catalog the SqlSession idea as a possible future feature. It really would be helpful if everyone could read minds. Maybe we could put a mind-reading feature in 3.3? :) Although that might push 3.3's release back to 2020. And could it be made thread safe... Regards, Jim
