At 03:53 PM 3/2/01 -0500, R. David Murray wrote:
>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
>> > 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....

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  :)

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to