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. > > Tres.
_______________________________________________ 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 )