On Tuesday 11 February 2003 11:04 pm, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:19, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> > I'm thinking the veto should be added by Connection.commit() and
> > Connection.setstate() whenever a conflict is about to propagate. What
> > do you think?
>
> Maybe I
On Monday 10 February 2003 8:47 pm, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> > Great, so there's at least 133 things to examine to see if they
> > could catch a ConflictError. And I only wrote about 15 of those.
> > The rest could be very time-consuming to audit.
>
> "tal:on-error" also catches all exceptions. I
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:47:58PM -0500, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> This doesn't seem to be a showstopper for now, but as more applications
> use ZODB, it could become a bigger problem.
Well, what kind of errors can this cause in the ZODB?
If it's just a matter of writing a mixture of old and new
d
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:11:15PM -0200, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
> Please, please, please, don't use generic "except:". They can cause ZODB
> corruption if they catch ConflictErrors.
Can anyone else confirm or deny???
If true, it needs to be much more widely publicized!
$ cd /usr/src/Zop
