On 8/9/07, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed, but it's still a storage, there's no reason for it not to do > conflict resolution itself. I thought it did ;-)
It's not a storage at all. It's a stub for the actual storage which lives in the server. That's a enormous difference. In fact, it would be better if ClientStorage was renamed to ClientStorageProxy or something. > Wouldn't it be beneficial if it *did* do conflict resolution? > (afterall, if the conflict can be resolved on the client, why go all the > way to the storage server to do the conflict resolution there?) "Wouldn't it be nice" is a big difference from "I thought it did" :-) It would be nice, but I am not sure it can do it. Conflicts are detected at the storage level, and as that level lives in the ZEO server, that's where resolution has to take place. Propagating the conflict back to the client because it *may* do conflict resolution would be less efficient still, as in most cases there is no conflict resolution available. -- Martijn Pieters _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - [email protected] 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 )
