Jim Fulton wrote:
> You were using? Or implementing? Do you realize that these wern't
> actually being used and wern't implemented correctly?
Sorry, implementing, not using.
> (BTW, One of the reasons for doing this cleanup is to set the stage
> for a decent savepoint implementation.)
>
>>> A
Tim Peters wrote:
> Maybe we need to stuff this crap back in again, despite that it's
> usless (the only thing actually implemented was an elaborate way of
> raising NotImplementedError) and misleading (because the ZODB4 scheme
> will never be implemented)? I don't know, but it sure isn't
> attrac
[Garrett]
>>> IDataManager was completely restructured.
[Garrett]
> This was not accurate -- the restructuring happened a while ago and I
> didn't catch it. I assumed this change was made along with the one I
> list below.
OK, that helps a bit. Thanks!
[Tim]
>> If you don't have specific breaka
Garrett Smith wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
[Jim Fulton]
Was there breakage? If there was, it was unintended.
[Garrett]
IDataManager was completely restructured.
This was not accurate -- the restructuring happened a while ago and I
didn't catch it. I assumed this change was made along with the one I
li
Tim Peters wrote:
> [Jim Fulton]
>>> Was there breakage? If there was, it was unintended.
>
> [Garrett]
>> IDataManager was completely restructured.
This was not accurate -- the restructuring happened a while ago and I
didn't catch it. I assumed this change was made along with the one I
list belo
[Garrett Smith]
>>> Recent changes to the transaction management API seem to have come
>>> out of the blue and without warning. Perhaps I missed an
>>> announcement.
>>>
>>> Are we to expect breakages of this sort on occasion?
[Jim Fulton]
>> Was there breakage? If there was, it was unintended.
[
Tim Peters wrote:
> [Garrett Smith]
>> Recent changes to the transaction management API seem to have come
>> out of the blue and without warning. Perhaps I missed an
>> announcement.
>>
>> Are we to expect breakages of this sort on occasion?
>
> Not often. The formal interfaces for the transact
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> Recent changes to the transaction management API seem to have come
>> out of the blue and without warning. Perhaps I missed an
>> announcement.
>>
>> Are we to expect breakages of this sort on occasion?
>
> Was there breakage? If there was, it was unin
Garrett Smith wrote:
Recent changes to the transaction management API seem to have come out
of the blue and without warning. Perhaps I missed an announcement.
Are we to expect breakages of this sort on occasion?
Was there breakage? If there was, it was unintended.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto
[Garrett Smith]
> Recent changes to the transaction management API seem to have come
> out of the blue and without warning. Perhaps I missed an announcement.
>
> Are we to expect breakages of this sort on occasion?
Not often. The formal interfaces for the transaction API contained
errors (of omis
10 matches
Mail list logo
