[Zope3-dev] Transaction bound cache
Hi
i've got a very simple transaction bound cache implementation. That is
the cache gets invalidated on transaction end.
It's used like this:
class Foo(object):
data = TransactionBoundCache('_v_store_it_here', dict)
where `dict` is the cache factory.
Shall I add this to zope.cachedescriptors?
--
Christian Zagrodnick
gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale
www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: zope.testbrowser packaging
+1 Also, extras is a miss-feature. Jim On Sep 15, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Benji York wrote: I have a small issue with zope.testbrowser packaging I'd like to get some input on. If I were to have started the project today, it would likely have been zc.testbrowser, which would have no Zope 3 dependencies (or functionality) and zc.testbrowser.zope, which would have, and depended on zc.testbrowser. Well, that didn't happen, but there are parallels to the current situation that might be informative. There is a configuration bug in testbrowser that means that unless you include the test extra, you won't get the Zope 3 dependencies. I suspect most people either include that extra, or accidentally include the dependencies through other packages. I have two ideas for fixing this: 1) introduce a zope extra that everyone will have to use (basically just rename test to zope; 2) take a lesson from the fictional zc.testbrowser and introduce another package (zope.testbrowser.zope) that contains the Zope 3 bits and depends on zope.testbrowser. I think this would be very hard if not impossible to do from a packaging perspective (declaring zope.testbrowser a namespace package *and* have it contain things like README, configure.zcml, etc.). I think I prefer the second, despite it's strange appearance. Thoughts? Let's look at this from the beginning. zope.testbrowser contains a) a reusable, completely Zope-independent test browser b) integration with zope.app.testing.functional, in other words a test browser for testing web applications based on zope.publisher. I think in its current use, zope.testbrowser is *mostly* used as b). When used as a), I don't think anybody is bothered by the fact that it might or might not have more dependencies (other than the inconvenience of having to install more stuff than actually necessary). So here's what I suggest: Factor out a) to a new package 'zc.testbrowser' (or whatever) and make 'zope.testbrowser', the remaining b), depend on zc.testbrowser, zope.app.testing and all that other stuff properly. That way - packaging and nomenclature are straight-forward, - we don't have to break backwards compatibility anywhere, - people who have used 'zope.testbrowser' because of a) until now won't experience any problems, even though we should probably tell them to switch to zc.testbrowser. -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jim%40zope.com -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] zope.testbrowser packaging
extras are a terrible feature. They aren't fully supported by setuptools and they make it more complicated. Did you write tests for every permutation of your extras? Jim On Sep 15, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Saturday 15 September 2007 08:48, Benji York wrote: 1) introduce a zope extra that everyone will have to use (basically just rename test to zope; I prefer this solution. I have done this before for z3c.rml, where I put the page template support into a pagetemplate extra declaration. I liked this solution a lot. I would have never considered developing another package for a fairly trivial extension of a few lines. I think eggs have the potential for package proliferation and senseless overhead. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jim%40zope.com -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Transaction bound cache
No, that would introduce a dependency on zodb. I suggest a separate
package.
Jim
On Sep 17, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Hi
i've got a very simple transaction bound cache implementation. That
is the cache gets invalidated on transaction end.
It's used like this:
class Foo(object):
data = TransactionBoundCache('_v_store_it_here', dict)
where `dict` is the cache factory.
Shall I add this to zope.cachedescriptors?
--
Christian Zagrodnick
gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale
www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jim%40zope.com
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python
Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
http://www.python.org
Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
