Hello.
I am experiencing a problem with ZODB-3.6.0 / Python 2.5, under Linux.
Each time I initialize a database, i get a DisconnectedError exception
in the client, with the following traceback:
quote
File /home/pferreir/workspace/indico/code/code/MaKaC/common/db.py,
line 50, in __init__
Hi. ZODB does not currently work with Py2.5.
Gary
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
On May 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
Hi. ZODB does not currently work with Py2.5.
I doubt that this has anything to do with his problem. He should try
with Python 2.4 though. I'll be interested and depressed if this
solves his problem .
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
On May 4, 2007, at 10:39 AM, José Pedro Ferreira wrote:
Hello.
I am experiencing a problem with ZODB-3.6.0 / Python 2.5, under Linux.
Each time I initialize a database, i get a DisconnectedError
exception in the client, with the following traceback:
quote
File
Gary Poster wrote:
Hi. ZODB does not currently work with Py2.5.
Gary
OK, thanks.
However, I was able to make it work, running this simple script, and
then running the application again.
quote
#!/usr/bin/python
import ZODB
from ZODB import FileStorage, DB
import transaction
storage =
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know why the client is being disconnected. As others have
hinted, you should try this with Python 2.4 -- and please report back
if that changes the outcome.
OK, I've tested it with Python 2.4.4, and it worked OK. For Python 2.5,
I had to use the hack I posted in
On May 4, 2007, at 11:25 AM, José Pedro Ferreira wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know why the client is being disconnected. As others have
hinted, you should try this with Python 2.4 -- and please report
back if that changes the outcome.
OK, I've tested it with Python 2.4.4, and it
Yes, the DB did not exist. And yes, it's not a hack, it's only opening
and closing the database... but it unexpectedly works after doing it.
Cheers,
Pedro
On May 4, 2007, at 11:25 AM, José Pedro Ferreira wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know why the client is being disconnected. As
On May 4, 2007, at 12:36 PM, José Pedro Ferreira wrote:
Yes, the DB did not exist.
OK
And yes, it's not a hack,
It looks like the hack was to open and close the storage with
FileStorage, rather than ZEO.
But with Python 2.4, you were able to create the database using ZEO.
Strange.
Hi All,
We have a big(ish) zodb, which is about 29GB in size.
Thanks to the laughable difficulty of getting larger disks in big
corporates, we've been looking into what's taking up that 29GB and were
a bit surprised by the results.
Using space.py from the ZODBTools in Zope 2.9.4, it turns
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-5-1 11:23 +0200:
...
I think you are right (as always). Then let me rephrase the question: how
can one distinguish if two transaction objects represent the same or
different transactions in such case where memory address is identical?
Why are you interested in such a
--On 4. Mai 2007 19:58:47 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-5-1 11:23 +0200:
...
I think you are right (as always). Then let me rephrase the question:
how can one distinguish if two transaction objects represent the same or
different transactions in
On May 4, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-2 11:52 -0400:
...
I think I still rather like explicit, but I'm on the fence about
which approach is best. What do other people think?
From your description, I would use a subclassing (and forget about
proxy and
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-4 14:40 -0400:
On May 4, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-2 11:52 -0400:
...
I think I still rather like explicit, but I'm on the fence about
which approach is best. What do other people think?
From your description, I would use
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-5-4 21:13 +0200:
--On 4. Mai 2007 21:05:00 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, the transactions are not concurrent in your original description!
Instead, one transaction has been committed and (only!) then you
see a transaction with the same id again.
Chris Withers wrote at 2007-5-4 18:53 +0100:
To try and find out which objects were referencing all these workflow
histories, we tried the following starting with one of the oid of these
histories:
from ZODB.FileStorage import FileStorage
from ZODB.serialize import referencesf
fs =
Dieter Maurer schrieb:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-4 14:40 -0400:
On May 4, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-2 11:52 -0400:
...
I think I still rather like explicit, but I'm on the fence about
which approach is best. What do other people think?
From your
Chris,
I think you're looking at forward references when you want to look at
back references.
This might help: http://plone.org/documentation/how-to/debug-zodb-bloat
(you might have to change the refmap to be in a zodb with that much data
though)
Laurence
Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
Hi,
Several people have made SQLalchemy integrations recently. SQLAlchemy
does not support Two Phase Commit (2PC) so correctly tying it in with
zope's transactions is tricky. With multiple One Phase Commit (1PC)
DataManagers the problem is of course intractable, but given the
popularity of
--On 4. Mai 2007 22:33:05 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following a discussion with several of the sqlalchemy integration authors
on #plone today we came up with the following hack to implement this:
http://dev.plone.org/collective/browser/collective.lead/trunk/collective/
--On 5. Mai 2007 02:46:58 +0200 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If commit fails or another DataManager fails, data is not commited to the
database.
However I am not sure if this is completely true. Although this approach
ensures that all SQL statements were execute properly it does
On May 4, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-4 14:40 -0400:
On May 4, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-2 11:52 -0400:
...
I think I still rather like explicit, but I'm on the fence about
which approach is best. What do other
22 matches
Mail list logo
