I must say I'm not an expert on all things ZODB/ZEO, but what I meant by ownership is the management of persistent objects. The cache management logic of ZODB can the way I understand it "ghostify" objects, what happens if I insert an object from one ZODB (using ClientStorage) into another (using local storage)? Which of the databases will control the ghostifying/unghostifying of the object? What I basically want to achieve is to be able to close the ClientStorage, and still be able to access these objects (without access to state in the ClientStorage).


On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:25:05 +0300, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Arve Knudsen wrote at 2006-4-25 17:32 +0300:
How should I ensure local
ownership of objects from the ClientStorage, by deep copying them?

The ZODB does not have any "ownership" concept.

Zope, on the other hand has two: executable ownership
and "local role" ownership.

  Executable ownership is usually changed by copying.
  "Local role" ownership is not. If you need a "Local role"
  ownership change, you must do it explicitely -- and recursively.

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to