On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:13:53PM +0100, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Paul Winkler wrote at 2006-1-16 14:32 -0500:
> >On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:48:45PM +0100, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> >> Synchronization modifies "bobobase_modification_time" on the target.
> >
> >Yep.
> > 
> >> A safe method to check whether you have a current state is to
> >> register the "bobobase_modification_time" (on source and target)
> >> that resulted from the synchronization.
> >> A resynchronization is necessary when the "bobobase_modification_time"
> >> moved away from the registered "sync_bobobase_time"s.
> >
> >Ahhh, now I see. Thank you, this is probably cheaper than
> >most of my ideas.
> >I could store that info in a BTree of some flavor.
> An alternative would be a persistent subobject of the synchronized
> object (such that its modification does not modify the
> "bobobase_modification_time" of the primary object).

That's not good: unless i find a suitable core zope class to use,
if the user ever uninstalls ZSyncer, all of his objects are broken!

in general, i don't like to pile more data onto the poor user's
unsuspecting objects. I have done it, i just don't like it :-)
> I just notice that synchronization of structured (e.g. "ObjectManager")
> objects might be a problem. As subobjects might also be synchronizable,
> they, too, should get the correct times.

Ugh, yes, that's a problem.

Paul Winkler
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to