Chris Withers wrote at 2003-10-8 21:22 +0100:
> Casey Duncan wrote:
> > > I would argue that a better plan would be to only use _v_ vars for completely > > disposable data only. The application should expect that this values will be > > gone at any random time, not just at transaction boundaries.
> > I agree with this. How do we go about find code that uses the assumption that > _v_ stuff won't change unless it's at a transaction boundary?
This will invalidate many current uses:
* use for database connections
Not really, I would expect a DA to just re-connect if it got garbage collected...
* use for skin data
This seems to be considered a bug...
* ...
How do we go about finding these? ;-)
Chris
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
