On Thu, October 26, 2006 15:00, Marco Bizzarri wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Jürgen Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, October 26, 2006 14:53, Marco Bizzarri wrote:
>> > Storing persistent object in object outside of ZODB can incur in the
>> > problem of passing object(s) between threads, and, therefore, passing
>> > one object which is related to a connection on the ZODB to another
>> > context with a different connection.
>> ok, this is probably the problem here, so would haveing a cache dict
>> for each thread help? there are only about 50-100 containers so the
>> memory overhead would be neglible compared to the performance gained.
> Yes, this should probably resolve your issue.
>> > Also, AFAIK, keep in mind _v_ attributes are not involved in
>> > transaction machinery of Zope. This means that if you have an error
>> > inside you transaction after you modified the _v_ cache, you will have
>> > the cache modified even tough the transaction has been aborted.
>> not a real problem as class instance containers are very static.
> I understand, we hit this problem while caching object obtained from
> database rows... and in case of failure cache became unreliable.
> I'm keeping the answer on the ML, if you don't mid.
of course, my failure while responding.
> Marco Bizzarri
> Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
> ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
> (Related lists -
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>> XLhost.de - eXperts in Linux hosting <<
Konrad Adenauer Allee 43, DE-93051 Regensburg
Fon: +49 (0)700 XLHOSTDE [0700 95467833]
Fax: +49 (0)721 151 463027
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -