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 modul
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 i
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 i
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
d
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
d
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
Sander Striker wrote:
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
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 wor
