On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Gary Poster<gary.pos...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Two teams here at Canonical just encountered the STAGGER_RETRIES >> behavior in >> http://svn.zope.org/zope.publisher/trunk/src/zope/publisher/http.py?rev=101538&view=auto >> . I don't see anything in tests or comments to explain it. Our >> guess is that it tries to put some breathing room around retries so >> that the chance of a conflict error might be reduced. > > Yup, although I think it's misguided in this case. With conflicts, > there's always a winner, so it makes sense to try again right away. > >> >> In one of our tests setting STAGGER_RETRIES to False reduced a test >> run from almost 9 minutes to about 1 minute (see >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-foundations/+bug/401586) >> . We have papered this over in our test suite to no ill effect, >> giving speed advantages. We wonder if we should remove the behavior >> entirely, even in production. > > I think so. > >> 1) Why should the time.sleep go into supportsRetry rather than retry? >> it seems really odd to have it in the method that returns a boolean, >> rather than the one that does the work. > > Yup. > >> 2) Can someone give some background for this code? Can they give >> examples of it actually helping anything? > > I doubt it. > >> We'd like to improve this, minimally by adding some explanatory >> comments, and maybe by changing, moving, or removing this code. > > Let's just remove it.
Cool, I'll do it tonight or tomorrow (have to run right now). Thank you very much! Gary _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org 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 )