[ZODB-Dev] Re: Possible contributions to ZODB
Gary Poster wrote: On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Gary Poster wrote: I have some code that might be worth putting into ZODB. There are three bits. - Two flavors of persistent queue. [...] I'm a bit surprised there was so little discussion: ZC has needed a persistent queue several times in the past. Whether the queue would be based on what I proposed or on something else someone else has, it seems like it would be a good thing to have. However, with only Julien replying I don't think that's enough to push it further. I'll keep it in zasync until/unless some better option comes around. Like Julien I'd like to encourage you to put it in the core. I'd say, in the persistent module. If you want unit testing without ZODB dependency, I think you should just synthesize states by hand, and test the conflict resolution method. Because in fact in you current unit tests, you're testing much more, including the ZODB mechanisms that detect concurrently modified objects in different connections and regenerate old state from the database, etc. It's not strictly needed (and is a lot of setup). Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
[ZODB-Dev] Re: Possible contributions to ZODB
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 have some code that might be worth putting into ZODB. There are three bits. - Two flavors of persistent queue. [...] I'm a bit surprised there was so little discussion: ZC has needed a persistent queue several times in the past. Whether the queue would be based on what I proposed or on something else someone else has, it seems like it would be a good thing to have. However, with only Julien replying I don't think that's enough to push it further. I'll keep it in zasync until/unless some better option comes around. Like Julien I'd like to encourage you to put it in the core. I'd say, in the persistent module. OK: I'll push this a bit more then. Thanks to you and Julien for your encouragement, and for Julien's offer of help. If you want unit testing without ZODB dependency, I think you should just synthesize states by hand, and test the conflict resolution method. True, that would work; and since I agree that the queue belongs in persistent, that's probably what I should do. Because in fact in you current unit tests, you're testing much more, including the ZODB mechanisms that detect concurrently modified objects in different connections and regenerate old state from the database, etc. It's not strictly needed (and is a lot of setup). True. I still like what I did, because I think it gives a fuller story for someone reading the doctest (and I don't mind the fact that the test relies on ZODB, despite classic unit test advice), but it can't go in persistent, so I think the point is moot. I'll push this farther along. 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
Re: [ZODB-Dev] Re: Possible contributions to ZODB
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. Whether the queue would be based on what I proposed or on something else someone else has, it seems like it would be a good thing to have. However, with only Julien replying I don't think that's enough to push it further. I'll keep it in zasync until/unless some better option comes around. Like Julien I'd like to encourage you to put it in the core. I'd say, in the persistent module. OK: I'll push this a bit more then. Thanks to you and Julien for your encouragement, and for Julien's offer of help. As I recall from conversations a few years back, a persistent queue is indeed useful and surprisingly difficult to get right (or, at least, get right with decent performance). Sounds like a good candidate for ZODB. Jeremy ___ 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
