[Tim Peters]
>> ...
>> I would like to make it an error (raise a ValueError exception) to
>> attempt to set obj._p_changed to a true value when obj is a ghost. Does
>> anyone object?
[Dieter Maurer]
> I came along an argument against this change:
>
> Assume, you have a persistent object "o" wit
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-8-26 14:59 -0400:
...
I would like to make it an error (raise a ValueError exception) to attempt
to set obj._p_changed to a true value when obj is a ghost. Does anyone
object?
I came along an argument against this change:
Assume, you have a p
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-8-26 14:59 -0400:
> ...
>I would like to make it an error (raise a ValueError exception) to attempt
>to set obj._p_changed to a true value when obj is a ghost. Does anyone
>object?
I came along an argument against this change:
Assume, you have a persistent object "o" w
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-8-26 14:59 -0400:
> ...
>Doing
>
>obj._p_changed = True
>
>when obj is a ghost appears to be senseless (what could a user possibly
>intend by doing this?)
I met this strange behaviour and considered it a bug.
What I wanted to do: use a ZODB object to synchronize
In IRC yesterday, Stephan Richter was writing a database migration script
that wanted to (re)store the state of every object's current revision.
FileStorage in ZODB 3.5 has a new iteration protocol (see NEWS.txt) to
deliver current revisions, and the relevant (to _this_ msg) part of
Stephen's code
