Tim Peters wrote:
> What I seem to be missing entirely here is why Zope ships Prefix instances
> at the base ZEO msg level to begin with; maybe it's to call some method I
> misunderstand (or haven't even bumped into yet <0.6 wink>).
When you want to undo something, Zope asks the ZEO server for a l
[blast from the past -- April 15]
[Tim Peters]
>> ... I'd reserve intense dislike for, e.g., __no_side_effects__
>> (remember that one?).
[Paul Winkler]
> Yes, I found it recently when I fixed a bug in ZopeUndo/Prefix.py. Does
> anything actually rely on that attribute, and what for? The only ch
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
+def tpc_begin(transaction):
+"""Begin commit of a transaction, starting the two-phase
commit.
+
+transaction is the ITransaction instance associated with the
+transaction being committed.
+
+subtransaction is a Boolean
Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> +def tpc_begin(transaction):
>>> +"""Begin commit of a transaction, starting the two-phase
>>> commit.
>>> +
>>> +transaction is the ITransaction instance associated with the
>>> +transaction being committed.
>>> +
>>> +subtransaction is a B
Florent Guillaume wrote:
+Transactions
+
+
+Transactions now support savepoints. Savepoints allow changes to be
+periodically be checkpointed within a transaction. You can then
+rollback to a previously created savepoint. See
+transaction/savepoint.txt.
Awesome. That's really nice t
On 4/25/05, Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +Transactions
> > +
> > +
> > +Transactions now support savepoints. Savepoints allow changes to be
> > +periodically be checkpointed within a transaction. You can then
> > +rollback to a previously created savepoint. See
>
> +Transactions
> +
> +
> +Transactions now support savepoints. Savepoints allow changes to be
> +periodically be checkpointed within a transaction. You can then
> +rollback to a previously created savepoint. See
> +transaction/savepoint.txt.
Awesome. That's really nice to have, tha
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:16PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
(snip)
> ... I'd
> reserve intense dislike for, e.g., __no_side_effects__ (remember that one?).
Yes, I found it recently when I fixed a bug in ZopeUndo/Prefix.py.
Does anything actually rely on that attribute, and what for?
The only chec
...
[Tim]
>> Does anyone object to my changing the ZEO version number to match the
>> ZODB version number? Concretely, that means:
>>
>> import ZODB
>> import ZEO
>> assert ZODB.__version__ == ZEO.version
>>
>> would no longer fail.
[Jeremy]
> +1
You could consider it done, then --
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 whe
[Florent Guillaume]
> I'm sure it's on purpose, but why isn't ZEO numbered the same way than
> the rest of the ZODB (3.4.0a3 now) ?
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 knowl
> Modified: ZODB/branches/3.4/src/ZEO/version.txt
> ===
> --- ZODB/branches/3.4/src/ZEO/version.txt 2005-04-13 21:48:16 UTC (rev
> 29966)
> +++ ZODB/branches/3.4/src/ZEO/version.txt 2005-04-13 22:00:25 UTC (rev
> 29967)
> @@
12 matches
Mail list logo
