Chris Withers wrote at 2003-10-15 12:49 +0100: > Dieter Maurer wrote: > > 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...
Did you think about it? It means that what should be one transaction becomes two. If it were a single transaction, the second part would be able to see the effects of the first part. This is not the case with two distinct transactions. Analysing such behaviour is a nightmare... Dieter _______________________________________________ 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 )
