Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >There's no problem either way if users swear not to do "anything > >transactional" in after-commit hooks. It's unattractive to leave that to > >good intentions and/or luck, and I don't see an easy way for either approach > >to _prevent_ "something transactional" from happening while an after-commit > >hook is running. > > Thus, promiss the user that any persistent changes he may try > will be lost: Put the "afterCommit" in its own transaction and abort > it afterwards.
That would be a nice solution I think. What would happen though if the post-transaction user code decided to commit the transaction? Could that be made to work, for code that would like to change persistent objects? 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
