On Feb 3, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
I have some code that might be worth putting into ZODB.
There are three bits.
- Two flavors of persistent queue.
[...]
I'm a bit surprised there was so little discussion: ZC has needed
a persistent queue several times in the past. Whether the queue
would be based on what I proposed or on something else someone
else has, it seems like it would be a good thing to have.
However, with only Julien replying I don't think that's enough to
push it further. I'll keep it in zasync until/unless some better
option comes around.
Like Julien I'd like to encourage you to put it in the core. I'd
say, in the "persistent" module.
OK: I'll push this a bit more then. Thanks to you and Julien for
your encouragement, and for Julien's offer of help.
If you want unit testing without ZODB dependency, I think you
should just synthesize states by hand, and test the conflict
resolution method.
True, that would work; and since I agree that the queue belongs in
persistent, that's probably what I should do.
Because in fact in you current unit tests, you're testing much
more, including the ZODB mechanisms that detect concurrently
modified objects in different connections and regenerate old state
from the database, etc. It's not strictly needed (and is a lot of
setup).
True. I still like what I did, because I think it gives a fuller
story for someone reading the doctest (and I don't mind the fact that
the test relies on ZODB, despite classic unit test advice), but it
can't go in persistent, so I think the point is moot.
I'll push this farther along.
Gary
_______________________________________________
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
