On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> "Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> > One reason I've been racing like mad to get the preview release out is so
> > that, after seeing the usefulness of TW for the Zope 3 component
> > architecture, y'all might be interested in considering implementations for
> > module persistence besides proxying.  :)  IMHO, a "rollback importer"
> > approach ala unittest might be better suited for TW-ish components, and
> > have fewer weird side effects for persistent modules generally.  I don't
> > like unittest's mechanism for *doing* the rollback, and Zope would need a
> > thread-specific version of sys.modules, as well as a mechanism to purge the
> > cache of any objects which were loaded after any of the purged modules, but
> > I think the basic idea is sound.
> Hmm.  I'm afraid I don't see how TW helps with module persistence.

I could be wrong, but I didn't read what Phillip wrote as saying he was
suggesting TransWarp as a player in the Module Persistence implementation,
but rather that he wanted people to see the value of TransWarp first hand
so that they would want to make sure that Module Persistence and TransWarp
could play together....


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to