[Zope-CMF] Re: Bad interaction between CMF 1.4 and Zope 2.8 (catalog-getObject-raises)
Tres Seaver wrote: Exactly. The point is that the adverse effect *already happened*, in some prior request, probably due to one of Chris' beloved hasattrs ;). The current request should *not* be prevented from continuing. Why not? Chris, take this as a fiat: this one will *never* turn into an exception. It's already an exception, you and Florent seem intent on burying that fact. Can you give me some specific examples in the past of where this has been of benefit? Every single time I've encountered this, the fact that the exception is caught has been a total hinderance :-( That said, I'm also aware that there are currently 4 of us talking about this, 2 on each side. What does the rest of the community think? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: Bad interaction between CMF 1.4 and Zope 2.8 (catalog-getObject-raises)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Withers wrote: Raphael Ritz wrote: Since you ask so explicitly ;-) I agree with Florent: Your site's _USERES_ should never get an error thrown at. Even if they're potentially destroying their own data as a result?! Chris, you can't seem to get the point the fact that the damage, if any, is *already done*, in some previous request. The log messages we are talking about here are a result of the code *noting* the already-created inconsistency. The proof of the pudding here is that this issue does *not* result in data loss for users: the symptom can be resolved by reindexing the entire catalog, for instance (the inconsistent data is secondary, not primary). Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCoHL5+gerLs4ltQ4RAjWvAKC5+SOU4DRUoX/ollOE6yC++TelFQCgw4iS a4xpiqoo7utrb1JCrqpfTLk= =29f6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Bad interaction between CMF 1.4 and Zope 2.8 (catalog-getObject-raises)
Raphael Ritz wrote at 2005-6-3 09:40 +0200: Chris Withers wrote: [..] That said, I'm also aware that there are currently 4 of us talking about this, 2 on each side. What does the rest of the community think? Since you ask so explicitly ;-) I agree with Florent: Your site's _USERES_ should never get an error thrown at. There are other ways to inform the site's admin. But admins are lazy people (I am one, part time; therefore, I know...) *unless* their users report problems. I know that lots of admins saw lots of inconsistency reports in Zope's logfile -- and did nothing! Only newbies asked from time to time what these log entries mean -- and got the advice to ignore them... I speak about the could not remove XXX from index III that plagued Zope's KeywordIndex for years. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Bad interaction between CMF 1.4 and Zope 2.8 (catalog-getObject-raises)
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-5-27 13:30 +0200: ... Let's not go into too much semantics here. Note that WARNING is an alias of PROBLEM. zLOG defines these levels as: PROBLEM=100 -- This isn't causing any immediate problems, but deserves attention. ERROR=200-- This is going to have adverse effects. And indeed the missing object isn't causing immediate problems. But just because you catched the resulting exception... An inconsistency between the catalog and its object world is an adverse effect. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Bad interaction between CMF 1.4 and Zope 2.8 (catalog-getObject-raises)
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-4-22 17:17 +0200: Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Yes we do! I really really really want to know if: - I have a catalog entry that points to an object that no longer exists. This can ONLY happen due to a bug somewhere and needs to be fixed - I have index corruption or other weirdness - any of the above are happening, and be able to descriminate between them. I honestly can thing of no sane justification for putting that None there. It's tantamount to a bare try except, and without even any logging. I rarely agree with Chris -- but this time I do :-) Yes, logging should be there. I'll add a LOG at level WARNING somewhere, I'm not sure where (after all it's unrestrictedTraverse that does the catching). When something in the catalog tells you, there were an object and the object is not locatable, then this is an ERROR and not a WARNING -- because, you met a data inconsistency. Data inconsistencies are serious enough to be classified as ERROR. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
