Chris Withers wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> class IKeyReference(zope.interface.Interface):
>> """A reference to an object (similar to a weak reference).
>>
>> The references are compared by their hashes.
>> """
>>
>> There, that wasn't so hard...
>
> Well yeah, but it's
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
class IKeyReference(zope.interface.Interface):
"""A reference to an object (similar to a weak reference).
The references are compared by their hashes.
"""
There, that wasn't so hard...
Well yeah, but it's also not very explanatory ;-)
If it's simi
Chris Withers wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> What's a "key reference"?
>>
>> -> zope.app.keyreference
>> -> zope.app.intid
>
> I was wondering if there was a more high level explanation that "rtsl" ;-)
There are usually doctests or at least interfaces. That isn't quite
rtsl, it's m
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
What's a "key reference"?
-> zope.app.keyreference
-> zope.app.intid
I was wondering if there was a more high level explanation that "rtsl" ;-)
I kinda know what an intid is, but what's a key reference?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zop
Hi Benji. The universal part makes sense for synchronization. Maybe this
is not as much of an issue for others, but I have been looking to
implement a UUID solution with this in mind.
Regards,
David
Benji York wrote:
David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. Where should this be done (separate identifier).
Chris Withers wrote:
>> If you do need a separate identifier of some kind, you can
>> use a key reference or use an integer id from an intid utlity,
>> which simply assigns integers to key references.
>
> What's a "key reference"?
-> zope.app.keyreference
-> zope.app.intid
Philipp
_
Jim Fulton wrote:
First, you usually don't need an independent unique id for an
object, since direct object references work much better in
Zope 3 than they do in Zope 2.
Great :-)
If you do need a separate identifier of some kind, you can
use a key reference or use an integer id from an inti
David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. Where should this be done (separate identifier). I was thinking
of a UUID of some sort when I read this which could be helpful for other
things.
UUIDs can be quite useful, but for identifying objects within a database
the "universal" part doesn't make much sense, he
Many thanks Jim.
Regards,
David
Jim Fulton wrote:
I expect that these frameworks are documented in the Zope books.
Look at the zope.app.keyreference and zope.app.intid packages.
(Both of these should eventially be moved out of zope.app
and both, sadly, were written before we developed doctest
I expect that these frameworks are documented in the Zope books.
Look at the zope.app.keyreference and zope.app.intid packages.
(Both of these should eventially be moved out of zope.app
and both, sadly, were written before we developed doctest-based
testing practices.)
Jim
On Jun 26, 2006, at
Hi Jim. Where should this be done (separate identifier). I was thinking
of a UUID of some sort when I read this which could be helpful for other
things.
Regards,
David
Jim Fulton wrote:
If you do need a separate identifier of some kind, you can
use a key reference or use an integer id from a
On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:17 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The default Zope 3 configurations still organizes objects into a
tree.
Path identifiers are no longer used.
How do you now uniquely identify an object?
First, you usually don't need an independent unique id for an
object
Jim Fulton wrote:
The default Zope 3 configurations still organizes objects into a tree.
Path identifiers are no longer used.
How do you now uniquely identify an object?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
On Jun 22, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Much of the value of the Zope 3 mounting code
was in getting around the limitation that cross-database
object references weren't supported.
Does Zope 3 still have the idea of "one big tree" of object with
path-like unique
Jim Fulton wrote:
Much of the value of the Zope 3 mounting code
was in getting around the limitation that cross-database
object references weren't supported.
Does Zope 3 still have the idea of "one big tree" of object with
path-like unique identifiers? If so, then mounting will probably still
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Zope 3 doesn't support mounting, but the same functionality
is mostly trivially obtained using the ZODB multi-database APIs.
Well, ok, then mounting support could a nice sprint topic :)
Maybe, I'm not really sure it is necessary.
Now you
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Zope 3 doesn't support mounting, but the same functionality
> is mostly trivially obtained using the ZODB multi-database APIs.
Well, ok, then mounting support could a nice sprint topic :)
___
Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3-users@zope.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Thierry FLORAC wrote:
While using Zope2, I used to "split" my ZODB into several parts, using
the "old" DBTab product configuration (which was finally included into
Zope2).
Can I setup this kind of configuration with Zope3 and, if so, how ?
Chris Withers wrote:
> Thierry FLORAC wrote:
>> While using Zope2, I used to "split" my ZODB into several parts, using
>> the "old" DBTab product configuration (which was finally included into
>> Zope2).
>> Can I setup this kind of configuration with Zope3 and, if so, how ?
>
> It's all ZODB, I wo
19 matches
Mail list logo
