On 08/30/2010 11:22 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just wondering what the state of 3.10 final is?
>
> I was worried that you were going to ask me about that. :)
>
> I haven't done much with it in a while. I need to get back to it.
>
Hi,
On 08/30/2010 11:36 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> ZODB used multi-version concurrency control to assure that data read
> are consistent. It doesn't check that or require data read to be up
> to date. For read-only transactions, this is approriate.
>
> Even for write transactions, not checking whet
Le lundi 30 août 2010 21:36:50, Jim Fulton a écrit :
> I've mistakenly tended to view this situation as an edge case.
I confirm. I encountered similar problems when a given persistent object
defines a transformation to be applied to another object (or more simply, when
the presence/content of an
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
> This is a fairly serious problem. It's serious enough that I'm, going
> to add some APIs in ZODB 3.10 to deal with it. One of these is:
>
> class ReadVerifyingStorage(IStorage):
>
> def checkCurrentSerialInTransaction(oid, serial):
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 03:36 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> The tricky thing about this is the last paragraph. If the method
>> doesn't raise an error, then there can't be updates to the object
>> until after the transaction commits. For most current
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 4:27:00 PM, you wrote:
JF> While I'm open to better names, I prefer a longer more descriptive name.
+1 on that
--
Best regards,
Adam GROSZERmailto:agros...@gmail.com
--
Quote of the day:
Reason and experience both forbid us to
