> > 1. In the example, just setting _p_changed=1 does _not_ lead to a
> > conflict error. With the ineffectual code above it (that never gets
> > executed) it _does_. So there _is_ some implicit magical stuff going
> > on and ZOPE tries to take care that only subobjects change (but
> > incompletely)!
> I strongly doubt it. Zope does not "inspect code". There must be a
> problem in your testing. Note that if self.a is a standard list, the
> self.a.append(1) doesn't have any impact on the persistence mechanism or
> transactions either.
Please, try it out. Delete the if clause and the append in it.
> > 3. It is especially confusing that ZOPE behaves differently when using
> > XML-RPC calls. From what you say, it should be the same within the
> > ZOPE system as when using XML-RPC. It gets more complicated with
> > XML-RPC though!
> The successive XML-RPC call you describe provoke new transactions,
> surely you're aware of that? Whereas just calling a function of course
I'm aware of that. But ZOPE offers XML-RPC and as there is nothing in
the documentation about such complex interactions. Also, I was
directly responding to what the previous poster had written.
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -