Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-8-26 14:59 -0400:
obj._p_changed = True
when obj is a ghost appears to be senseless (what could a user possibly
intend by doing this?)
I met this strange behaviour and considered it a bug.
What I wanted to do: use a ZODB object to synchronize
caches across a set of ZEO clients.
The synchronization object is empty but it should get
a new serial to indicate to other ZEO clients that
they should flush their cache.
I would like to make it an error (raise a ValueError exception) to attempt
to set obj._p_changed to a true value when obj is a ghost. Does anyone
It would be better than the current behaviour...
But, why not go a step further and let it behave as one would
expect: let the ZODB write the object at the next "transaction.commit()"?
I agree with Dieter, it would be more logical if doing obj._p_changed = True
unghostified the object and marked it as changed.
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org