Jamie Heilman wrote:

2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency.

That, on its own, is not a very helpful statement ;-) What are the differences between 2.1 and 2.2 that you care about?

The stock OFS/Cache.py is
insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included
patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API.  There is
no third thing.

Have you got a collector issue / Fishbowl proposal anywhere that is looking to get this accepted? What reasons could people have for not liking this new Cache.py?

Yes and no.  Its issue 911.  "Working on it" would require:
$ cd your-zope-cvs-head
$ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/Cache.py > lib/python/OFS/Cache.py
$ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cmassoc.diff | patch -p0
$ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cachemanagers.diff | patch -p0

Well, I'm not confident that I understand the relevent code to do this and then do a CVS commit ;-) I wonder who is?

$ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/Cache.py to replace \
    ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble

With what? This kind of comment is a bit inflamatory and not at all helpful :-(

But none of that will fix that RAM Cache Manager's waste memory.

Indeed, but I wouldn't call it waste memory...

Again, its just a choice that was made in RCM's design, less
processing overhead w/the potential for more memory usage.

...it's just a design choice.



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

Reply via email to