Hash: SHA1

Jim Fulton wrote:
> Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Tim Peters wrote at 2005-8-22 16:48 -0400:
>>> ...
>>> Jim still wonders, and he got me wondering too, whether the `order=`
>>> gimmick
>>> is really needed.
>> But, it is a very easy concept -- both easy to grasp as well as easy
>> to implement.
> This is not sufficient IMO.
>>> For example, you could have gotten to the same end here
>>> with the old method, by registering your actions with an object of
>>> your own
>>> creation, and registering just one commit hook with the transaction,
>>> where
>>> that one hook looked at the actions you registered with your own
>>> object and
>>> ran them in whatever order _it_ determined was best.
>> Now plug and play comes into play:
>>   Assume two packages developped by independent people
>>   which all want to control the order of hook execution.
> Do we have evidence that such applications exist? So far, the
> only example I've seen is one where an application wanted a handler
> to go last. As I've pointed out in a separate note, this is achievable
> without the change.

We have. We are thinking of adding another hook within CPS to maintain
our tree caches. (I'm not going into details on the CPS tree cache here)

We would have these 3 hooks that we will want to see executed in the
following order :

IndexationManager -> TreeCacheManager -> EventManager

If you want more information about this Jim, feel free to ask.


- --
Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France)
CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org
Zope3 / ECM   : http://www.z3lab.org
mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

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

Reply via email to