I have turned this in to a collector issue.
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 13:32, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Casey Duncan wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:00:16 +0200
> > Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Chris McDonough wrote at 2004-5-15 13:04 -0400:
> >>>Dieter, do you think you can read this patch and give a thumbs up or
> >>>down on it?
> >>The patch looks good.
> >>>On a different subject, the publisher probably shouldn't pass around
> >>>traceback objects (e.g. when it calls into err_hook) as Tres believes
> >>>that may be a memory leak waiting to happen.
> >>The traceback is vital for error analysis.
> >>It may not be necessary that ZPublisher touches the traceback
> >>but we will definitely need access to it during error handling.
> Because the traceback contains stack frames, passing it through another
> stack frame (via a function call) is inherently tricky: the called
> function must *not* raise another exception.
> > Perhaps the traceback can be passed as a string to avoid leaks?
> > Furthermore why can't the traceback be retrieved later from
> > sys.exc_info()?
> +1; I don't want untrusted code handling tracebacks anyway.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -