Tim Peters wrote at 2005-12-30 15:40 -0500:
> ...
> or maybe it would be better to break the reference cycles when
>_ConnectionPool forgets a Connection (so that the trash gets reclaimed right
>then, instead of waiting for a gc collection cycle to reach the generation
>in which the trash lives).
I
David Rushby wrote at 2005-12-30 11:14 -0800:
> ...
>Since ZODB doesn't know whether the connection it's releasing from the
>pool is still in use, I don't know whether resetting the connection's
>cache is appropriate as a general solution. But it fixes a definite
>problem with Zope's behavior as a
tav wrote at 2005-12-31 18:40 +:
>> Why is it significantly easier to protect the key[s]
>> used for the encryption than the storage itself?
>
>one could always passphrase-protect the key, i.e. use symmetric encryption.
>
>admittedly, this could potentially be brute-forced, but ... should b
Could folks have a look and tell me what they think of the proposed
patch? Actually it is my belief this is a concern of DB or Connection,
not MountedObject, and the code shouldn't be in MountedObject but that's
the easiest workaround for now.
Florent
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Ok I've dug deep
I suppose "folks" includes me. ;-) I'll try to have a look this
week... Sorry, I've been avoiding any actual work over the last week
or so.
- C
On Jan 1, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Could folks have a look and tell me what they think of the proposed
patch? Actually it i
