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 Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   CTO, Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -

Reply via email to