Hi Alec,
Alec Mitchell wrote:
So, Sidnei has been plugging away at the "AT reindexes things an obscene
number of times" issue today, and appears to have fixed many of the AT
triggered indexing redundancies.
Where is this work being done? I'd be very interested to track it...
*) TypesTool.constructInstance() is triggered
**) A _setObject call results in CMFCatalogAware.manage_afterAdd() which
triggers a full indexObject().
So this one should go away some how :-S
*) This is shortly followed by TypesTool._finishConstruction()
*) Which calls CMFCatalogAware.notifyWorkflowCreated()
*) Which in turn calls WorkFlowTool._reindexWorkflowVariables()
**) Which does a CMFCatalogAware.reindexObject([idxs]) on
workflow specific variables (with a full metadata update)
And this one too?
*) And calls CMFCatalogAware.reindexObjectSecurity() which
reindexes the object only on the security index, and doesn't touch metadata.
Does reindexObjectSecurity do anything other than just the reindex the
security indexes? If not, it can go too ;-)
**) TypesTool._finishConstruction() then does another
CMFCatalogAware.reindexObject().
...leaving just this one :-)
So we have two full reindexes, and three metadata updates. The last reindex
appears to be there only to catch the change to 'portal_type' in
_finishConstruction.
Well, it's the last one, so I'd argue it should be the _only_ one. Why
do things need to be indexed before then?
Additionally, almost immediately before this last reindexObject call,
another reindexObject call has happened in notifyWorkflowCreated, which
included a full catalog metadata update. As a result, updating the catalog
metadata here is certainly redundant. Unfortunately, the
CMFCatalogAware.reindexObject method provides no means of avoiding the
duplicate metadata update, though it would be trivial to add and to use
here.
That sounds like a good idea :-)
Another option suggested by Sidnei on IRC, which would avoid the potential
issues with limiting the variables indexed in the final reindex. Would be
to let CMFCatalogAware.manage_afterAdd know (presumably via some state
variable)
Why a state variable rather than just a parameter?
that it is being invoked through constructInstance/invokeFactory,
in which case it could safely skip the initial indexing and allow
_finishConstruction to take care of indexing the object fully on it's own at
the end.
+1 from me.
In the long term we will probably be better served by delaying all
indexing to transaction boundaries, though it will be a fair bit harder to
implement, and may irk some developers who depend on immediate changes to
the catalog on reindex.
Yeah, it also makes things harder to test. Unit tests require stuff to
be indexed, so if this was the way to go, which apart from that one
thing I think _should_ be the case, there should be a "flush all pending
indexing" thing, which should keep everyone happy. Just have to make
sure that then doesn't get misused and end up being called 100 times per
operation ;-)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
