On Jul 19, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tobias Rodäbel wrote:

Hi Gary,

thanks a lot for your response!

Am 19.07.2007 um 15:52 schrieb Gary Poster:

- Is this consistently reproduceable, or intermittent? Unless you are intentionally creating a conflict in a test, any errors in the changes in 3.9 would be more likely to be intermittent.

It is consistently reproduceable.

- Even better, can you construct a small, distributable test case? That would certainly invite more help. - Have you tried to reproduce with the most recent zope.app.keyreference in the 3.4 line and the most recent ZODB 3.8 line? If so, that might get Jim's attention, and would rule out the relatively small changes in the 3.9 dev egg. Unless you like riding the bleeding edge, I might suggest using those earlier versions for now anyway.

I did. It worked well. Here are some code snippets I use concerning to this problem, I guess. Maybe it has something to do with that location.LocationProxy thing. (I found most of the code here http:// readlist.com/lists/zope.org/zope3-users/0/2518.html )

Hi Tobias

Sounds even more like Roger was right, then. Make sure that the object you persist is not actually wrapped in the location proxy. Here's the most pertinent snippet from what Roger sent you:

    def set(self, photo):

        if photo is not None:
# remove location proxy because the ZODB doesn't like it anymore
            photo = zope.proxy.getProxiedObject(photo)
        self._photo = photo

(notice that `getProxiedObject` call, and the comment)

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

Reply via email to