Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, just for my understanding: we don't get bitten by this because Zope uses the ThreadTransactionManager which keeps objects within one thread (at one time)? Christian ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

[ZODB-Dev] Re: [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christian Theune wrote: just for my understanding: we don't get bitten by this because Zope uses the ThreadTransactionManager which keeps objects within one thread (at one time)? Zope works for this case because each application thread uses a

Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Aug 18, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote: Excellent analysis snipped 1. and 3. (but obviously not 2.) could be handled by implementing STICKY not by a bit but by a counter. This has been planned for some. :/ Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ZODB-Dev] Serializability

2007-08-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Aug 19, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote: Analysing the STICKY behaviour of 'Persistent', I recognized that 'Persistent' does not customize the '__getattr__' but in fact the '__getattribute__' method. Therefore, 'Persistent' is informed about any attribute access and not only attribute

Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Jeremy Hylton
On 8/20/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 18, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote: Excellent analysis snipped 1. and 3. (but obviously not 2.) could be handled by implementing STICKY not by a bit but by a counter. This has been planned for some. :/ I think Jim

Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, just for my understanding: we don't get bitten by this because Zope uses the ThreadTransactionManager which keeps objects within one thread (at one time)? Dieter appears to have been bitten by this and he is one of we. :) We, and

Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Christian Theune
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 10:45 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton: On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, just for my understanding: we don't get bitten by this because Zope uses the ThreadTransactionManager which keeps objects within one thread (at one time)? Dieter

[ZODB-Dev] Proposal for better object cache

2007-08-20 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, Jim pointed out an idea for a better object cache when he was in Potsdam (at least IIRC). I've picked that idea up and converted it into a proposal at http://wiki.zope.org/ZODB/ClassifyingObjectCache I'd be happy to work on that when I have some rd time.

[ZODB-Dev] Re: [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Dieter Maurer
Tres Seaver wrote at 2007-8-20 10:00 -0400: ... Zope works for this case because each application thread uses a per-request connection, to which it has exclusive access while the connection is checked out from the pool (i.e., for the duration of the request). At least unless one make persistency

Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Dieter Maurer
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-8-20 10:15 -0400: Excellent analysis snipped 1. and 3. (but obviously not 2.) could be handled by implementing STICKY not by a bit but by a counter. This has been planned for some. :/ I have (reread) this in your Different Cache Interaction proposal. Thanks to

Re: [ZODB-Dev] [Persistent] STICKY mechanism unsafe

2007-08-20 Thread Dieter Maurer
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-8-20 10:45 -0400: ... Dieter appears to have been bitten by this and he is one of we. :) We, and I presume he, can be bitten by a Python function called from BTree code calling back into the code on the same object. This is possible, for example, in a __cmp__ or