Tim Peters wrote:
> Jim Fulton]
>>We should probably think harder about the semantics of sync. But it
>>implied a transaction boundary -- specifically, an abort. You wouldn't
>>want this to happen automatically.
> I assume Rajeev doesn't really want to call sync() automatically, because
> that's never what anyone asking that question really wants. What they
> invariably _want_ is for ZEO to process invalidations by magic, and they've
> been calling sync() manually as a way to get that to happen.
Would it be sensible for ZODB to do the equivalent of sync() when users
call transaction.begin()? That's what I tend to expect it to do
anyway--it takes some effort to remember that it doesn't.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org