-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> I don't understand why keeping the order paremeter is such a big deal ?
>> Because it clutters the ZODB API with something that is, fundamentally
>> application policy.
> Ok seen that way I agree. That's not the ZODB's job to decide what kind
> of API is provided to enforce policy.
>> > But that only works if you have all the code in a single framework. If
>> > Zope had a commit hook, and that CPS wanted to add another one that
>> > after Zope's", there would be no way to do it.
>> Right, they have to agree on a common API. With the order gimmic,
>> this is a ZODB API. It could as easily be a higher-level API.
>> Since CPS in built on Zope, it could even be a Zope API that
>> CPS used.
> Ok. We can go back to a simple API for the ZODB before commit hook (the
> one I originally checked in seems enough), but we need to decide what
> kind of higher level API we provide at the Zope level. Would an integer
> order be ok there ? And where should the code go ?
It won't change the fact that the ZODB hooks can't be controlled at
registration time if they are registred by different layers of the
architecture. (not all necessarly based on Zope which could provides the
hook manager (or whatever) ok maybe ...)
Then I could agree only *if* only one hook could be registred on the
transaction otherweise it would mean we are stuck with the current not
controllable policy imposed by the ZODB that sucks...
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org