On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:37:37PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
> Funny thing is, I've been running a Zope-2.7.6-b2 client against a
> Zope-2.7.3 ZEO server since Monday and hadn't noticed any problems
> yet ... I guess I hadn't tried to undo anything. Just now I
> checked and apparently manage_undo
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:05:56PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> Neither did I, Paul -- I don't know ZopeUndo from a hole in the ground. It
> _might_ have helped if you had added an entry to ZODB's news file recording
> that ZopeUndo.Prefix had changed.
Yeah, but I don't know ZODB's news file from s
>> I'm pleased to announce the release of ZODB 3.2.8 (final). Also irked,
>> since ZODB 3.2.7 final was released just yesterday. Alas, an
>> incompatible change in 3.2.7's ZopeUndo.Prefix implementation
>> effectively made it impossible to use a 3.2.7 ZEO server with a Zope
>> running a ZODB earl
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 04:25:01PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the release of ZODB 3.2.8 (final). Also irked,
> since ZODB 3.2.7 final was released just yesterday. Alas, an incompatible
> change in 3.2.7's ZopeUndo.Prefix implementation effectively made it
> impossible to u
I'm pleased to announce the release of ZODB 3.2.8 (final). Also irked,
since ZODB 3.2.7 final was released just yesterday. Alas, an incompatible
change in 3.2.7's ZopeUndo.Prefix implementation effectively made it
impossible to use a 3.2.7 ZEO server with a Zope running a ZODB earlier than
3.2.7,
Shane Hathaway wrote:
...
Would it be sensible for ZODB to do the equivalent of sync() when users
call transaction.begin()? That's what I tend to expect it to do
anyway--it takes some effort to remember that it doesn't.
Yes, or commit, or abort. That's what Tim and I were pondering
in a part of th
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Modified: ZODB/branches/3.4/src/transaction/_transaction.py
===
--- ZODB/branches/3.4/src/transaction/_transaction.py 2005-04-27 10:18:40 UTC
(rev 30199)
+++ ZODB/branch
Tim Peters wrote:
> Jim Fulton]
>>We should probably think harder about the semantics of sync. But it
>>implied a transaction boundary -- specifically, an abort. You wouldn't
>>want this to happen automatically.
>
>
> I assume Rajeev doesn't really want to call sync() automatically, because
> tha
Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Modified: ZODB/branches/3.4/src/transaction/_transaction.py
> ===
> --- ZODB/branches/3.4/src/transaction/_transaction.py 2005-04-27 10:18:40 UTC
> (rev 30199)
> +++ ZODB/branches/3.4/src/transa
[Rajeev J Sebastian]
>>> Is there some means provided by ZODB/Zeo by which I can get notified
>>> about changes to certain objects after performing sync() ?
[Tim Peters]
>> There is not. Object state is loaded by calling its __setstate__()
>> method, and you may be able to hack something out of t
Tim Peters wrote:
[Rajeev J Sebastian]
Is there some means provided by ZODB/Zeo by which I can get notified
about changes to certain objects after performing sync() ?
There is not. Object state is loaded by calling its __setstate__() method,
and you may be able to hack something out of that, but
11 matches
Mail list logo
