Jeremy Hylton wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 10:53 AM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  We would also modify transaction commit methods to call hooks.  Hooks would
  not be called on sub-transaction commit.  (If necessary, we could add
  separate sub-transaction hooks, but I don't think we need this.)

The effect here is to register a one-short synchronizer, so all the
code already exists.  Or, add another line just after the
beforeCompletion() call in  I think the question to
ask is how to make these two closely related APIs understandable to
users.  The synchronizers API is slightly more general, but still
focused clearly on observing transaction boundaries.  Perhaps the new
hook is just a sugar on top of the synchronizer API.

See my response to your earlier comment. I don't think the existing api is a very good fit at all.

  This hook is very simple to use an implement and, I think, addresses
  the requitement much more directly than implementing special data

Perhaps you misunderstand the synchronizer API.  It does not deal with
data managers at all.  The registered objects just implement
beforeCompletion() and afterCompletion().

I would argue though that it is well suited to data managers and not well suited to the use case in question.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -

Reply via email to