> > 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 > doesn't. 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. Ole _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )