Toby Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >This reminds me of a question I had: given that (from what I understand) > >_v_ attributes only live in the object cache of a given Zope, > > True, and more accurate that I think you expected.... > > The issue is that one Zope has more than one ZODB object cache, even > without ZEO. There is one per worker thread. Each cache has > independant _v_ attributes
Ah, yes, I knew this in the back of my mind. > Ive never looked at LDAPUserFolder so this may be irrelevant, but is > it possible for LDAPUserFolder to validate that the cached _v_ > information is still fresh? If that validation is quicker than > fetching a new copy then this is still an overall win. I'm not sure there's a fast way for what LDAPUserFolder needs. Actually the LDAP server itself does have a cache, so things should be fast enough without caching in Zope. I'll have to try it. > If data consistency is an absolute requirement, then you *have* to hit > some shared storage on every transaction. Ok. I'll investigate clearing the _v_ caches at the end of the transaction, using the REQUEST._hold hack mentionned earlier. Anyway there are other problems with LDAP, seeing that there's no way to undo a transaction on error... Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) +33 1 40 33 79 87 http://nuxeo.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
