Shane Hathaway wrote:
That would be pretty cool, since it's easy for scripts to add to the
queue, and it gives you plenty of granularity. It wouldn't work under
Windows, though, AFAIK. Maybe on Windows we could call back to a
network socket that accepts the same kind of data.
Oops, I meant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Shane
I have been thinking about this last night.
I think you should provide some sort of out of band signalling
method. But given that Adaptable Storage sits below ZODB, which
sit's below Zope, I feel that the signalling method should be directed
at the lowest
seb bacon wrote:
I'd prefer just to have a method somewhere that, as Shane suggested,
could be hit by URL, etc.
A whole seperate server seems like overkill...
But what about, for example, databases which don't have an efficient way
to do callbacks to external applications? You may have to do
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Chris Withers wrote:
I think this is as such is life problem. Provided AdaptableStorage
provides some way (exposed url?) for an external process to say that
things have changed, I think that's the best form of flexibility we can
provide.
I think I'll provide such an URL,
Chris Withers wrote:
seb bacon wrote:
I'd prefer just to have a method somewhere that, as Shane suggested,
could be hit by URL, etc.
A whole seperate server seems like overkill...
Well, if by server you could mean script that gets run by cron every 1
minute and hits a URL in Zope if
How about having a seperate process which just watched the files and
notifed Zope when they changed?
A definite possibility. It might even just poke an URL to send the
notification.
Since every storage will have its own unique notification scheme, which
may be more or less inefficient
seb bacon wrote:
Since every storage will have its own unique notification scheme, which
may be more or less inefficient (worst case scenario, periodic polling
of entire storage for recently modified items), it might make sense to
have a notification server. It would make it simpler for users
Chris Withers wrote:
seb bacon wrote:
Since every storage will have its own unique notification scheme,
which may be more or less inefficient (worst case scenario, periodic
polling of entire storage for recently modified items), it might make
sense to have a notification server. It would
Shane Hathaway wrote:
I'm thinking about real-time updates. When the underlying data
changes, you'd like Zope to see the change immediately. If indefinite
delays are OK, then AdaptableStorage already does enough: it raises a
ConflictError if you try to write changes based on old data.
I
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
I'm thinking about real-time updates. When the underlying data
changes, you'd like Zope to see the change immediately. If indefinite
delays are OK, then AdaptableStorage already does enough: it raises a
ConflictError if you try to write changes
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify the
database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset its
caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing list you had
some cool ideas to sovle the
seb bacon wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify
the database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset
its caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
performance. There needs to be a way for applications that modify
the database to tell Zope about the modification, so Zope can reset
its caches.
But, IIRC, the last time this was discussed on a mailing list you had
some
Shane Hathaway wrote:
On the filesystem, the problem seems much more difficult, since there
are no transactions. You'd like the kernel to send Zope a message
anytime someone modifies a file in a certain hierarchy, but that would
require kernel hacking.
FWIW, since I had the same problem
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
On the filesystem, the problem seems much more difficult, since there
are no transactions. You'd like the kernel to send Zope a message
anytime someone modifies a file in a certain hierarchy, but that would
require kernel hacking.
FWIW, since I
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
On the filesystem, the problem seems much more difficult, since there
are no transactions. You'd like the kernel to send Zope a message
anytime someone modifies a file in a certain hierarchy, but that
would require kernel
Oliver Bleutgen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
I've seen it before, but I don't think FAM is able to monitor an
entire directory tree. It only monitors individual files. I'd really
like to be wrong. :-)
I think you are wrong, because the manpage (for IRIX) says otherwise.
Additionally, it
seb bacon wrote:
Shane, AdaptableStorage is insane and beautiful - congratulations :-)
Thanks! I've been working on this for a long time. Two years ago a
Digital Creations customer demanded proper object-relational mapping.
The customer abandoned us for different reasons, but I feel like
Paul Winkler scrive:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 05:30:58PM +, seb bacon wrote:
Shane, AdaptableStorage is insane and beautiful - congratulations :-)
It seems to inspire insanity :) kosh and i got into a discussion on #zope
about using AdaptableStorage with reiserfs4, mapping zope properties
19 matches
Mail list logo
