Gary Poster wrote:
>> I worked on a Zope-2.9 branch of off the CVS HEAD for zasync this week.
>> It over there:
> awesome!
>> The customer is currently testing out an application using it so it's
>> supposed to work.
>> What remains to be done is porting the tests (which sounds like a big
>> deal looking at the non standard tests there...)
> I don't know.  I was definitely experimenting. :-/  And the "tests" of
> the client don't deserve the name.  I plan to do much better with the
> new version.
>> Note, this branch is using an "in house" persistent queue replacing the
>> BTrees within the zasync manager.
> Cool.
>> Of course, I'd like to put this branch back to the repository
>> but please not in CVS... I don't feel courageous enough to branch and
>> merge with CVS anymore...
> :-)
>> Would it be possible to migrate the zasync
>> component from the to ? I don't know who can
>> do that ? (Hopefully, we'll have a ZF soon...)
> I don't care about migrating the history, so if noone else does either I
> could try doing a migration.

ok go ahead then. I'll fix the tests just before.

>> Gary, it would be an occasion to check you persistent queue and see how
>> we could add this to ZODB and make zasync use it.
> Cool.  Yes, I'll try to get the persistent queue in ASAP.  I have a few
> small changes, and then I need to make the test changes that Florent
> suggested.


>> Other question : how people would feel about an integration of zasync,
>> or another implementation, into the Zope core ?
> The functionality is certainly very, very useful for large sites (and
> for any site that needs big work done on demand, I guess).  I wonder if
> the configuration approach I took makes it too heavy for the core,
> though.  Certainly, this was a first generation, and there are a number
> of things I wish I had done differently, beyond better tests: I started
> writing them down here, in the beginning of what I plan to be a
> Zope3-based rewrite (largely ZODB-based, hopefully, rather than too many
> dependencies on Zope 3; we'll see):
> Zope 2 isn't WSGI/Twisted yet, is it?  

nope not yet.

> The zasync rewrite (which I'm
> working on occasionally personally now, and will need at work in a
> couple of months) might work pretty well in Five if the Twisted reactor
> is used in Zope 2.  If not, maybe someone knowledgeable in Medusa could
> write an equivalent.  Finally, maybe others have a zasync approach that
> would be a better choice.
> Within a month or so I hope to put up a proposal for the zasync rewrite
> so folks can comment on it and see if it's going a direction they like
> (or see if they can push me in a direction they like :-).  I am hopeful
> that it will feel "lighter" than the current implementation.
> Alternatively, if there's an effort by other folks to write another
> approach entirely, cool!

ok let's wait for your proposal to discuss about it. Sounds great.  You
can expect us to get involved since we're having a huge need of zasync
for a while now. zasync works fine for now on our side (and deeply
overloaded here on production instances ;) Apart from the BTrees
conflicts errors we had, that are fixed now with the persistent queue.


Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France)
CPS Platform :
Zope3 / ECM   :
mail: anguenot at; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to