[Chris Withers]
>> I'd really prefer not to do that unless absolutely necessary:
>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2004-June/007554.html

[Jeremy Hylton]
> It sounds like the answer here it so avoid fork, rather than asyncore.

Good advice in general to avoid both <0.5 wink>.

Still, people frightened by that link should read the whole thread, on
zope-dev.  POSIX fork() doesn't clone threads to begin with, so the scenario
described in the original message doesn't apply even in the presence of
forking on most boxes.  Dieter eventually came to that conclusion too:


    Discussion in "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" suggests that this problem
    cannot occur as described with a POSIX fork implementation.

    I observed the problem in a different setup and concluded
    from the Linux "fork" manual page only that Zope's
    "asyncore.mainloop" thread will suffer from the same problem.
    I did not observe the behaviour in this setup and it is well
    possible that it cannot occur

>  If you don't run an asyncore mainloop, you'll be responsible for
> manually sync-ing all the storages/connections that asyncore would
> handle automatically.

Worth repeating.  Worth guessing Chris's next question too <wink>:


For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to