> It is unlikely that the the low conflict connection causes your > problem. "Low conflict" affects the following situation: > > You try to load an object (because it is not in your ZODB cache) > and get informed that is has been modified (by another commited > transaction) since your transaction started. > > With a normal ZODB connection, you will get a "ReadConflictError" > as adding the object to your ZODB cache would make it inconsistent: > some objects would have the state from your transactions start > and others from a later date. > With a low conflict connection, the inconsistency is accepted > and no "ReadConflictError" is raised. > > As you described, you loose the session object. > This is not easily understood as the effect of a cache inconsistency. >
Sure. Disabling Low conflict hasn't solved anything. I'm not able to find where is the problem. I have not enought knowledge of Zope internals. I will try to store my data in persisten subobjects, as you said. One thing is true: Changing session object simultaniously in various frames doesn't work fine. Sometimes session data is not the espected becouse another frame has erased your changes in the session object. I think this is a serious inconvenient in front of other platforms. >From my point of view, it would be better to have SESSION out of the transaction but with changes stored inmediatly. You don't? Perhaps some day I will be able to implement this for myself. Until that, do you think I should enter a bug, or this cann't be considered as a bug? Thanks for your help Santi Camps _______________________________________________ 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 )