On 07/22/2013 01:27 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
- The biggest thing ZODB needs right now is documentation.
Unfortunately, this isn't easy. There is zodb.org,
but much better documentation is needed.
There is
https://github.com/cguardia/ZODB-Documentation
but seems like it got stalled 5 month
It sounds like you're missing some transaction middleware in your wsgi
pipeline. See
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/zope-core-dev/aB5BzvrVJxw for some
clues.
On 22 July 2013 22:58, Suresh V. wrote:
> Also happens with RelStorage trunk from github.
>
> Tests run fine after bumping up th
Also happens with RelStorage trunk from github.
Tests run fine after bumping up the max_allowed_packets slightly.
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/list
On 22.07.13 13:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
The BTrees package is an attempt to isolate certain things from ZODB.
While I appreciate the general intent, I cannot see the advantage at
this point:
- BTrees can be imported alone, yes. But it has
Am 22.07.2013 13:27, schrieb Jim Fulton:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Christian Tismer
wrote:
This is my last emission for tonight.
I would be using ZODB as a nice little package if it was one.
There should be nothing else but
ZODB.
Instead, there is
BTrees
persistent
On 22.07.13 18:01, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 09:15 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
BTrees
I agree, this could be part of ZODB and it would be fine.
Splitting out BTrees was a conscious decision to serve two goals:
- - Allow evolving it (in part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 09:15 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
>>> BTrees
> I agree, this could be part of ZODB and it would be fine.
Splitting out BTrees was a conscious decision to serve two goals:
- - Allow evolving it (in particular, the work to port it to Py3k
On 22.07.13 15:15, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday, July 21, 2013 06:12:34 AM Christian Tismer wrote:
BTrees
I agree, this could be part of ZODB and it would be fine.
...
ZODB3 (zlibstorage)
Well, this package is deprecated. It is available for backward-compatibility.
Yes,
On 22.07.13 16:38, Patrick Strawderman wrote:
On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
- BTrees has a serious bug, see the following example:
from BTrees import OOBTree as BT
t = BT.BTree()
for num in range(100):
... k = str(num)
... t[k] = k
...
t._firstbucket._next = Non
On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> - BTrees has a serious bug, see the following example:
>
>> >>> from BTrees import OOBTree as BT
>> >>> t = BT.BTree()
>> >>> for num in range(100):
>> ... k = str(num)
>> ... t[k] = k
>> ...
>> >>> t._firstbucket._next = None
>> >>> l
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> On 22.07.13 13:13, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Christian Tismer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Third rant, dear Zope-Friends (and I mean it as friends!).
>>>
>>> In an attempt to make the ZODB a small, independant package
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Stephan Richter
wrote:
> On Sunday, July 21, 2013 06:12:34 AM Christian Tismer wrote:
...
>> ZConfig
>
> In my opinion this is a relic from the times before configparser existed.
IMO, ZConfig is very useful in some specific cases, especially ZODB and logging
On Sunday, July 21, 2013 06:12:34 AM Christian Tismer wrote:
> BTrees
I agree, this could be part of ZODB and it would be fine.
> persistent
> transaction
> zc.lockfile
> zdaemon
> zope.interface
These are all very useful outside the context of ZODB and I use them w
On Monday, July 22, 2013 02:11:04 PM Christian Tismer wrote:
> BTrees would make more sense as a standalone package if the persistence
> model were pluggable. But that is also theoretical because I don't see
> right now how to split that further with all the C code.
I agree with this sentiment. Wh
On 22.07.13 13:13, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
Third rant, dear Zope-Friends (and I mean it as friends!).
In an attempt to make the ZODB a small, independant package, ZODB
has been split into many modules.
Maybe not as many as you think:
persist
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> Hi friends,
>
> I'm trying to work with ZODB. (!)
Cool.
>
> Coming from durus development since a couple of weeks, I am
> spoiled by simplicity.
>
> Actually, I'm annoyed by durus' incapability to accept patches,
> so I'm considering to
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> This is my last emission for tonight.
>
> I would be using ZODB as a nice little package if it was one.
>
> There should be nothing else but
>
> ZODB.
>
> Instead, there is
>
> BTrees
> persistent
> transaction
> zc.lo
On 22.07.13 11:54, Adam GROSZER wrote:
On 07/21/2013 05:09 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
- discussion
zc.zlibstorage requites a wrapper to add it to filestorage.
I consider this an option, instead, and a simple boolean flag to
switch
it on and off.
The module is way too simple
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> Third rant, dear Zope-Friends (and I mean it as friends!).
>
> In an attempt to make the ZODB a small, independant package, ZODB
> has been split into many modules.
Maybe not as many as you think:
persistent, transaction, ZEO, ZODB and B
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> The BTrees package is an attempt to isolate certain things from ZODB.
>
> While I appreciate the general intent, I cannot see the advantage at
> this point:
>
> - BTrees can be imported alone, yes. But it has the extensions prepared
>
On 07/21/2013 05:09 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
- discussion
zc.zlibstorage requites a wrapper to add it to filestorage.
I consider this an option, instead, and a simple boolean flag to switch
it on and off.
The module is way too simple to add all this config extra complication
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a misconfiguration but I'm getting some really
slow page generation times. I profiled it and a lot of time is spent in
rollback which seemed odd.
Ordered by: internal time
List reduced from 2017 to 100 due to restriction <100>
Function
22 matches
Mail list logo
