Thanks, I will definitely look into that for my immediate problems.
2005/12/16, Michael Haubenwallner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jan-Ole Esleben wrote:
> > Thanks; this is a problem we are well aware of. Our solution is to
> > increase the amount of workers, obviously.
> > However, I'm increasingly getting a feeling that for a rather big
> > range of unlikely situations that are nonetheless to be expected, Zope
> > doesn't work _at all_. In a WebServices setting, situations like the
> > one I described, with one server calling back to another server within
> > a call from that latter server and both not knowing anything about the
> > implementation of the other, it would most certainly be extremely hard
> > to foresee the exact setup of such situations and impossible to
> > exclude them for persistent objects that actually _do_ change state
> > (unlike mine). The solution is to not have state in your objects, and
> > thus lose instantly most of what Zope is.
> > However, as I see it, the problem is that what Zope actually _is_
> > (i.e. mostly the ZODB) is an unhealthy way of coupling data and
> > implementation (which is _exactly_ why my implementation didn't work
> > immediately). This of course comes from its origins in TTW development
> > where there wouldn't actually have been many user made products.
> > Please tell me if I'm wrong with my assumption above, and why. I'm not
> > trying to be inflamatory, this just has me really worried.
> > Ole
> You could try XMLRPCMethod.
> It creates its own worker thread and has a configurable timeout.
>  http://www.zope.org/Members/EIONET/XMLRPC
> Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
> ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
> (Related lists -
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -