On 4/14/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Beats me -- the ZEO version number has been one less than the
corresponding ZODB version number (e.g., if ZODB is 6.7.8q12, ZEO is
5.7.8q12) as far back as my knowledge goes, and I can't find an explanation.
The version number got added when we
On 4/15/05, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
It's mentioned in the documentation -- see section 3.4 ZEO programming
notes -- and it's been discussed on this list many, many times.
Where are these notes?
In the ZODB ZEO programming guide that's packaged
On 5/21/05, DJTB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[posted to comp.lang.python, mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Following up to both places.]
I'm having problems storing large amounts of objects in a ZODB.
After committing changes to the database, elements are not cleared from
memory. Since the number
On 5/29/05, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would a multi thread ZEO server improve anything here? Especially
with concurrent access?
It's possible. Although ZEO talks over the network using async sockets,
it reads files synchronously, so I suspect it will frequently sit around
On 6/22/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
IMO/IME, asyncore is a poor fit for applications where the callbacks are
fancy, or even where they may just take a long time to complete (because
the asyncore mainloop is unresponsive for the duration). So if I had to use
On 6/29/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Tim Peters]
As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database. I'm not
sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or
really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg).
[Dieter Maurer]
I do
IIRC, the old implementation of savepoints kept a copy of the index at
the time the savepoint was taken so that you could rollback to it
multiple times. I don't think there's any way to avoid such a copy.
Jeremy
On 7/11/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Tim Peters]
...
The good news
On 7/12/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Jeremy Hylton]
IIRC, the old implementation of savepoints kept a copy of the index at
the time the savepoint was taken so that you could rollback to it
multiple times. I don't think there's any way to avoid such a copy.
Right
On 8/22/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim still wonders, and he got me wondering too, whether the `order=` gimmick
is really needed. For example, you could have gotten to the same end here
with the old method, by registering your actions with an object of your own
creation, and
On 10/13/05, Chris Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that, but my point was when you call transaction.commit(),
you don't necessarily know what you're committing. One thread may be
ready to commit. Another may not be. If one thread calls
transaction.abort(), they may be aborting
On 11/9/05, David Binger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Syver Enstad wrote:
What I want to do is just update the persistent instance so that
it will
load from the new module/ new class after I have done a one time
update
of the database.
I fear this will
On 11/9/05, David Binger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 9, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
How do you find all the references? It seems like you would need to
execute a transaction that iterated over every object in the storage
and searched the pickle for references to the class
On 11/17/05, Thomas Lotze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I just noticed two things about persistent.PersistentMapping:
- It inherits from UserDict.UserDict. Is there any reason not to inherit
from dict directly, given that this has been possible since Python 2.3
IIRC?
It has been
On 12/14/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy, the code at the start of _setstate() looks fishy: any idea what the
intent was?:
# There is a harmless data race with self._invalidated. A
# dict update could go on in another thread, but we don't care
#
On 12/14/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a checkout of ZODB, so I can't check the svn blame. Does it
say who wrote the code and what change it was related to?
Congratulations on weaseling out of another one ;-)!
It was much harder to weasel out of them when I actually
On 12/29/05, Monica chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have recently jumped into python and ZODB . I am quiet familar to syntax
and everything but there is one Issue . when we create a .fs file or say
data.fs and saves in it some objects.If we open this file in notepad or
other editior. It
Is the problem with consistency of results served across the ZEO
clients or by consistency of the database itself? It seems like it
must be the former.
In the case of an intolerable ZEO failure, I would expect to lose
execution time consistency among peers but preserve consistency of
committed
On 2/3/06, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
I'm a bit surprised there was so little discussion: ZC has needed
a persistent queue several times in the past.
On 3/2/06, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
persistence-3.6.0.egg (which would include persistent and BTrees
modules).
zodblib-3.6.0.egg (which would include ZODB and ZODB
On 3/8/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it just me or does zeoup.py write a transaction to the end of Data.fs
containing a MinPO object?
That sounds right. What does the source say?
Jeremy
___
For more information about ZODB, see the
On 7/4/06, Jean Jordaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Answering myself ..
FileStorage in 2.8.7 doesn't have '_serial' any more. Is there something
equivalent I can get hold of and use?
It looks like '_tid' fits the bill. It's not available when using ZEO though,
which took me a while to figure
On 3/15/07, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter wrote:
Unfortunately, neither of these means anything to me ;-)
That is because you did not look at the code :-)
Much as I wish I had time to read and learn the whole zodb code base, I
don't. It wasn't clear what that code did and
On 3/20/07, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2007-3-16 08:45 +:
...
Is there any way an object could be invalidated without there being a
non-current revision to read?
Sure (through a call to ZODB.DB.DB.invalidate), although usually
it
On 8/20/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Excellent analysis snipped
1. and 3. (but obviously not 2.) could be handled by
implementing STICKY not by a bit but by a counter.
This has been planned for some. :/
I think Jim
24 matches
Mail list logo
