Thanks for your response. I will try the locking first and the see if I
can implement a transaction manager of my own.
I will read about virtualizing Python, I'm a debian user :))
Thanks and best regards,
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Feb 11, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Manuel Vazquez Acosta wrote:
I'm writing a small application for which I want to use ZODB's
persistence machinery. I have a couple of question, though.
I have read that each thread should have its own connection to the
DB. However, in my case, each thread should be aware of what is
actually in the DB at all times. So I wonder if I can shared the
connection between those threads as long as I take the means to
protect it (i.e RLock).
I am not certain, actually. The mechanism for doing this is in
there. The interfaces.py file states:
A Connection instance is not thread-safe. It is designed to
support a thread model where each thread has its own transaction.
If an application has more than one thread that uses the
connection or the transaction the connection is registered with,
the application should provide locking.
And it goes on to talk about the sync=False parameter vaguely.
But the story doesnt really end there... there is also the capability
to register a different "transaction manager" at DB open time.. the
default one assumes one transaction per thread.
I'd need to dig through all this code to reunderstand it, but it looks
My scenario is akin a consumer-producer with shared buffer. Consumers
pull items from the buffer whilst producers put items in the buffer.
The buffer is an OOBTree along with an IOBTree which gives "serial"
numbers to the keys of the OOBTree.
The typical way to do this using one-connection-per-thread and a
threaded txn manager would be to call transaction.commit() when
mutating the shared data structures. To detect changes to the objects
provided by a connection (due to other threads committing during the
connection's transaction), you can connection.sync(). Zope calls
transaction.begin() at the beginning of a request and either
transaction.abort() (on failure) or transaction.commit() (on success)
at its termination. It never needs to do an explict connection.sync()
because it never wants to do a "dirty read" (each request has its own
connection and sees its connection data as canonical for the duration
of its existence). Zope handles conflicts by retrying the request.
But Zope has it easy because the web has natural transaction
boundaries that don't always exist in GUI apps or other apps with a
different request/response cycle.
The other question is about compiling ZODB without using the
out-of-the-box distutils installation procedure. I'm also playing
with Zope and Plone, so I have several instances on the same machine.
I think installing with distutils may cause conflicts with the Zope
instances. Am I right? If so, then how should I install ZODB
side-by-side the consumer-producer application?
The easiest thing to do here is to install a separate Python instance
for each project. Alternately if you're on UNIX, you can use "virtual
python" (http://peak.telecommunity.com/dist/virtual-python.py) which
makes a tree of symlinks that acts like a new Python instance but has
its own "site packages" directory in which distutils stuff is installed.
If you're on Windows, I believe Zope/Plone ship with their own copy of
Python on that platform, so installing to the system python shouldnt
create a conflict.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org