Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-8-26 14:59 -0400:

...
Doing

      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
object?


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

--
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:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev

Reply via email to