Hi all,
I am are using ZServer/Medusa for FTP-Uploads to our ZODB. This works for
smaller files, but the above error appears in instance.log, when using a ~5 GB
file.
There's probably nothing I can do about it, as it's an internal python
marshalling limit. Or would there be a way to make
You're trying to upload a 5GB file into Zope?
Andreas
Am 04.12.09 12:47, schrieb Jan Schulze:
Hi all,
I am are using ZServer/Medusa for FTP-Uploads to our ZODB. This works for
smaller files, but the above error appears in instance.log, when using a ~5
GB file.
There's probably nothing
And here is a nice comment within marshaller.py:
93 def demarshall(self, obj, data, **kw):$
94 if kw.has_key('file'):$
95 if not data:$
96 # XXX Yuck! Shouldn't read the whole file, never.$
97 # OTOH, if you care about large files, you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Schulze wrote:
I am are using ZServer/Medusa for FTP-Uploads to our ZODB. This works
for smaller files, but the above error appears in instance.log, when
using a ~5 GB file.
There's probably nothing I can do about it, as it's an internal
Thomas Lotze wrote:
[snip]
How are we going to organise the work? Do you intend to sketch out a plan
for action? Should everyone create their own branches and experiment for a
while first?
I think you're the main volunteer we have to work on this, so I suggest
you try your stuff on a branch.
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
[snip]
I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I
understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been
rejected or postponed.
Multi adaptation with IFoo(foo, bar) is off the agenda. Whether that
means a permanent
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision.
I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have
had much weight in on this. They seem like important stakeholders. :)
Stephan has chipped in on this
Thomas Lotze wrote:
[snip]
I'd be happy to lead this effort, if you like to put it like that. I
wouldn't want to take it out of Martijn's hands, though, unless he's happy
with it as well, given that he's the one who started the discussion.
By all means take the lead on the implementation. :)
Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 03:11:07PM -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I
understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been
rejected or postponed.
AFAICT,
Hi,
On 12/03/2009 06:41 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. Hopefully
everybody is at least reasonably happy with this:
An adapt() method will be added to Interface. It takes the objects to
adapt as *args, and optional but explicit
Gary Poster wrote:
I would think we would want to follow the pattern of the adapter_hooks in
zope.interface.interface, including the C optimizations.
Speaking of adapter hooks: If I'm not completely mistaken, adapter hooks
know about exactly one object to be adapted. To follow the pattern of
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision.
I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have
had much weight in on this.
12 matches
Mail list logo
