Jan-Ole Esleben wrote:
1. In the example, just setting _p_changed=1 does _not_ lead to a
conflict error.


I can assure you it will if any other connection to that ZODB does the same thing on the same object...

executed) it _does_. So there _is_ some implicit magical stuff going
on and ZOPE tries to take care that only subobjects change (but
incompletely)!

Rubbish. You're likely misunderstanding your own example, or not understanding the context in which it's executing...

2. You shouldn't use lists and dicts - it should say this "on the
front page".

Why? You want us to rewrite all the docs just to cater for your weird use cases? Tell you what, how about you jost google for "zope conflict error" and have a read?!

3. It is especially confusing that ZOPE behaves differently when using
XML-RPC calls.

It doesn't. It behaves exactly the same as for any other request, w.r.t. zodb transactions...

XML-RPC though! All the stuff that you claim as being obvious really
isn't all that obvious.

Maybe for you ;-)

PersistentMapping etc., but I still don't know what _exactly_ to
expect from ZOPE in terms of behaviour with mutable objects that
aren't Persistent (because of the XML-RPC inconsistency

There is NO xml-rpc inconsistency...

and the
self._p_changed inconsistency both mentioned above).

_p_changed is pretty hugely documented in all the zodb docs I've ever read.

I dunno, maybe you're stupid, lazy, or both, but please quite whining...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
           - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
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 )

Reply via email to