Zope-Dev May 2004

zope-dev@zope.dev

70 participants
72 discussions

Explicit Acquisition within Acquistion.Implicit derived class
by Wyatt Anderson 25 May '04

25 May '04

Hello, I am encountering strange behavior when trying to dynamically set explicit Acquisition within an Acquisition.Implicit object. The strangeness seems to happen when I refresh the product only, but I do not feel certain of this which has me a little nervous. In a Python Product class, named TestAcquisition, I derive from Folder (which in turn gives me Acquistion.Implicit). This class defines an attribute which can dynamically be set to be acquired from nested TestAcquisition objects. In order to do this I test whether the attribute can be acquired (by checking to see if aq_parent has the attribute). In the top-level TestAcquisition object, this attribute should not be acquirable, and thus it will set it self.attribute = 1 In sub-objects of TestAcquisition, by default the attribute will be acquired (which I test and do in manage_afterAdd) by setting self.aq_explicit.attribute = Attribute.Acquired I can dynamically unset and set sub-objects acquisition of this attribute simply by setting self.attribute = 2 or self.aq_explicit.attribute = Attribute.Acquired within the TestAcquistion sub-object. This seems to be working as desired until I refresh the Product, even just simply adding a pdb.set_trace() as the only change. After the refresh all the subobjects that had explicitly been set to acquire the attribute all return the Special Acquisition Object (Acquisition.Acquired) instead of the desired value to be acquired. Is this a bug, something I just have to live with, or am I missing something on acquisition in my product? I'd really like to keep the implicit acquisition and not switch to Acquisition.Explicit. Thanks in advance! Wyatt

2 1

RE: Explicit Acquisition within Acquistion.Implicit derived class
by Wyatt Anderson 24 May '04

24 May '04

After further review, this strange behavior can happen simply after viewing the object a couple times. It seems erratic at best and obviously is not the behavior I'm after. What am I missing about explicit acquisition? From the Zope Developer's Guide: ------------- Sometimes, you want to dynamically make an implicitly acquiring object acquire explicitly. You can do this by getting the object's aq_explicit attribute. This attribute provides the object with an explicit wrapper that places the original implicit wrapper. ------------- Unfortunately, that's all that is said about aq_explicit. -----Original Message----- From: Wyatt Anderson [mailto:wyatt95@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:01 PM To: 'zope-dev(a)zope.org' Subject: Explicit Acquisition within Acquistion.Implicit derived class Hello, I am encountering strange behavior when trying to dynamically set explicit Acquisition within an Acquisition.Implicit object. The strangeness seems to happen when I refresh the product only, but I do not feel certain of this which has me a little nervous. In a Python Product class, named TestAcquisition, I derive from Folder (which in turn gives me Acquistion.Implicit). This class defines an attribute which can dynamically be set to be acquired from nested TestAcquisition objects. In order to do this I test whether the attribute can be acquired (by checking to see if aq_parent has the attribute). In the top-level TestAcquisition object, this attribute should not be acquirable, and thus it will set it self.attribute = 1 In sub-objects of TestAcquisition, by default the attribute will be acquired (which I test and do in manage_afterAdd) by setting self.aq_explicit.attribute = Attribute.Acquired I can dynamically unset and set sub-objects acquisition of this attribute simply by setting self.attribute = 2 or self.aq_explicit.attribute = Attribute.Acquired within the TestAcquistion sub-object. This seems to be working as desired until I refresh the Product, even just simply adding a pdb.set_trace() as the only change. After the refresh all the subobjects that had explicitly been set to acquire the attribute all return the Special Acquisition Object (Acquisition.Acquired) instead of the desired value to be acquired. Is this a bug, something I just have to live with, or am I missing something on acquisition in my product? I'd really like to keep the implicit acquisition and not switch to Acquisition.Explicit. Thanks in advance! Wyatt

1 0

http://collector.zope.org/Zope/1347 - Zeo help
by Laurence 24 May '04

24 May '04

Hey guys, Sorry if this is a faq or otherwise covered elsewhere, but I've encountered quite a big problem with Zeo in my environment. I'm running FreeBSD 5.2.1 (Current as of last night) with Zope 2.7.0, Postgresql 7.4.2, Python 2.3.3 and psycopg-1.1.13. We have been developing with Zope using a single Zope server without Zeo and the time have come to migrate onto Zeo. Everything seemed to come accross smoothly (We brought up the new server in a single Data.fs config) and everything seemed fine so we moved onto setting up Zeo with the Data.fs. It seems that if we nest ZPT's more then three deep (ZPTA includes ZPTB which includes ZPTC) we get a seg fault and the Zope process dies (The Zeo server is fine). If we load ZPTB or comment out the inclusion of ZPTC everything works fine. It's when we encounter 3 or more layers that the server seg faults. I've included the output from gdb on the collector. I've been searching all day and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction. http://collector.zope.org/Zope/1347 Any ideas? Thanks, Laurence

3 2

[zope.org] We want YOU - we need a new installation manual!
by Andreas Jung 22 May '04

22 May '04

Hi, the current installation instructions on zope.org http://www.zope.org/Documentation/Misc/InstallingZope.html are totally obsolete. Anyone volunteering to update this document for Zope 2.7? The appreciation of the Zope community will be yours. -aj -- Andreas Jung -------------------------------- www.zopyx.com Software-Entwicklung und Consulting Andreas Jung

2 2

Zope Bug Day - Friday 28th May?
by Chris Withers 22 May '04

22 May '04

Hi People, I offered to schedule and organise the Zope bug days for the last Friday of each month, and the first one of those is looming. Do people have any objections to Friday 28th May as a bug day? If I hear nothing, I'll begin more widely advertising next week... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

4 6

RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors
by Jean-Francois.Doyon＠CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 21 May '04

21 May '04

Juan David, Indeed, thanks for the input, I've ruled out new_publish as the cause as well ... Right now, I'm at the stage where I severely suspect it's got something to do with i18n support or translation somehow, but don't know where exactly yet. If I remove the message_catalog, the problem goes away. If I remove the TranslationService instance, the problem goes away. Do you use this? Does anybody know of alternatives to the TranslationService+Localizer combo to enable i18n in ZPT's on Zope 2? If I keep the above two, but delete my custom Localizer instances, the problem persists. I was trying to find an alternative message_catalog to use, but couldn't find one (CMFLocalizer is based on yours). So I'm going to try and narrow the field some more. I *quickly* looked the message_catalog and TranslationService code, and nothing jumped out. I have to also look at the ZPT engine itself, maybe it's i18n support is the cause of the problem. I'll run further tests ... Thanks, J.F. -----Original Message----- From: "J. David Ibáñez" [mailto:jdavid@itaapy.com] Sent: May 21, 2004 8:17 AM To: Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Cc: dieter(a)handshake.de; zope-dev(a)zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors The problem I have with one of my sites seems to have a different cause, as it does not show up when errors occur, but when requests are succesful. So far I haven't been able to reproduce the problem. You can try to modify "new_publish" to catch exceptions: def new_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug=0): id = get_ident() Publish._requests[id] = request try: x = Publish.old_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug) except: del Publish._requests[id] raise else: try: del Publish._requests[id] except KeyError: ... Though it is unlikely the leak to be there. Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca wrote: >Indeed, I was hoping the ref in the dictionary there was getting in the way >when old_publish was raising an exception, but I tried using a >weakref.proxy() >instead and that didn't help. > >I managed to test without Localizer (It dawned on me that since I'm looking >at errors, it really doesn't matter if I don't have Localizer installed >since >not having it will generate errors, which is what I want!) ... And the >problem >diappeared ... > >So it's definitely Localizer, but it's not the Globals() request patch ... >Or >at least not the act of patching it itself, that causes the problem. > >*sigh* >J.F. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dieter Maurer [mailto:dieter@handshake.de] >Sent: May 20, 2004 2:58 PM >To: Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca >Cc: jdavid(a)itaapy.com; tseaver(a)zope.com; zope-dev(a)zope.org; >chrism(a)plope.com; brian(a)zope.com >Subject: RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage >caused by errors > > >Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca wrote at 2004-5-20 09:58 -0400: > > >>... >>def new_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug=0): >> id = get_ident() >> print "Localizer got thread id: " + str(id) >> Publish._requests[id] = request >> print "Request dict is now: " + str(Publish._requests) >> x = Publish.old_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug) >> try: >> del Publish._requests[id] >> except KeyError: >>... >> >> > >This code cannot leak requests in large numbers (though it may >leak a few requests for some time). > >Reason: Zope does not normally create new threads. This implies >that thread_ids are reused and thereby old requests flushed from >the dict. > > > -- J. David Ibáñez Founder and CTO of Itaapy <http://www.itaapy.com> 9 rue Darwin, 75018 Paris Tel +33 (0)1 42 23 67 45 / Fax +33 (0)1 53 28 27 88

3 3

Re: Read-only root database doesn't work ... bug or feature?
by Paul Winkler 21 May '04

21 May '04

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:09:48PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: > Paul Winkler wrote: (snip) > >I have not yet found exactly how Formulator triggers a commit, > >but it is definitely something called by its initialize() function. > > It is probably trying to do the Right Thing (TM) by registering with the > help system. The fact that the help system writes to the database is a > wart the size of my foot. Good thought, but practically everything else does that too, and Formulator's the only one that triggers this issue. I've tracked it further to Formulator.FieldRegistry.initializeFieldForm() but I don't grok what that's doing yet, only just started looking at it... -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com

1 1

RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors
by Jean-Francois.Doyon＠CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 21 May '04

21 May '04

Indeed, I was hoping the ref in the dictionary there was getting in the way when old_publish was raising an exception, but I tried using a weakref.proxy() instead and that didn't help. I managed to test without Localizer (It dawned on me that since I'm looking at errors, it really doesn't matter if I don't have Localizer installed since not having it will generate errors, which is what I want!) ... And the problem diappeared ... So it's definitely Localizer, but it's not the Globals() request patch ... Or at least not the act of patching it itself, that causes the problem. *sigh* J.F. -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Maurer [mailto:dieter@handshake.de] Sent: May 20, 2004 2:58 PM To: Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Cc: jdavid(a)itaapy.com; tseaver(a)zope.com; zope-dev(a)zope.org; chrism(a)plope.com; brian(a)zope.com Subject: RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca wrote at 2004-5-20 09:58 -0400: > ... >def new_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug=0): > id = get_ident() > print "Localizer got thread id: " + str(id) > Publish._requests[id] = request > print "Request dict is now: " + str(Publish._requests) > x = Publish.old_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug) > try: > del Publish._requests[id] > except KeyError: > ... This code cannot leak requests in large numbers (though it may leak a few requests for some time). Reason: Zope does not normally create new threads. This implies that thread_ids are reused and thereby old requests flushed from the dict. -- Dieter

2 1

Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors
by Jean-Francois.Doyon＠CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 20 May '04

20 May '04

Gents, In following to the discussions regarding the leakage zope.org and my site suffer from, I've done some testing, and here's what I've found. First of all, the leak does seem to occur when errors occur. Unlike what Chris suggested, I still suffer from this leak even when I completely remove standard_error_message. How I tested: I use JMeter, and a 99% identical box, dedicated for testing: - RH 7.3 - Python 2.3.3 compiled with ./configure and no options - Zope 2.7 + a variety of products, both custom and well known (CMF, Localizer, etc ...) I look at my error log on my main site to see the types of errors coming up and note the URL/parameters. Such errors include KeyErrors, a RecursionDepth error, a Method-something-or-other error, and so on. I setup JMeter with multiple concurrent threads and run it. Within minutes I can see refcounts growing abnormally on the test server. I then shut everything down and minimize the caches. The following are left around that shouldn't be: Class May 19, 2004 1:52 pm May 19, 2004 2:26 pm Delta Acquisition.ImplicitAcquirerWrapper 1025 1309 +284 ZServer.HTTPResponse.ZServerHTTPResponse 150 247 +97 ZPublisher.BaseRequest.RequestContainer 146 240 +94 ZPublisher.HTTPRequest.HTTPRequest 172 262 +90 Right now I've focused on finding out why the Requests are still around. Using the gc module, I've found that all leaked requests are being held by a dictionary. If I look at said dictionaries, this is what they might look like: {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/francais/mapsatoz>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/francais/mapsatoz>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/search/political>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/search/political>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/search/political>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/search/political>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/search/political>}, {3075: <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/age/youth/HEAD>, 4100: <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/debug>, 5125: <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/debug>, 6150: <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/english/search/political>, 7175: <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/vh_ site/english/maps/archives/5thedition/other/referencemaps>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/debug>}, {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh _site/misc_/WFSAdapter/sqlmethod.gif>} NOTE: I had to hack the __repr__ of HTTPRequest not to use self['URL'] since it seems that attribute is unavailable in a closed request. I use PATH_INFO instead. Most of the time I get the dictionary with the 'REQUEST' key. Those dictionaries with int's as keys are ones generated by the ExternalMethod I use to run the code to debug ... So even errors raised while trying to debug this leaks a dictionary that holds on to the request(s). Said dictionary does not seem to be referred to by anything, at least not anything the gc module can find (gc.get_referrers()). One possible situation is that said dictionary is actually part of the HTTPRequest, and we have a cyclic reference problem. I don't think so however, I've looked at the HTTPRequest instances, and they have nothing in them other than strings, lists, basic dict's and an HTTPResponse instance. I'll take another look to be sure. Next step is too look at the Wrappers and see what they're all about and what's holding them there. I'm hoping this information might give a clue to someone who knows Zope error handling better than I as to what might be the problem here ... Also I understand zope.org suffers from this? :) Based on this information also, I have no reason to believe this is caused by product code ... I have to guess it's a Zope bug? In some ways this is motivating me to reduce the number of errors that could occur, but because ALL errors seems to cause the problem, I ultimately have no control over it and under certain circumstances I suffer heavily from this. 404's alone probably cause this (I'm plannign to test that explicitely as well). Thoughts, suggestions, comments welcome ... Jean-François Doyon Internet Service Development and Systems Support / Spécialiste de dèveloppements internet et soutien technique Canada Centre for Remote Sensing / Centre Canadien de télédétection Natural Resources Canada / Ressources naturelles Canada http://atlas.gc.ca Tel./Tél. : (613) 992-4902 Fax: (613) 947-2410

5 6

RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors
by Jean-Francois.Doyon＠CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 20 May '04

20 May '04

Juan David, I'm using 1.0.1 ... I'm just abotu to try and test with 1.1.0a3 ... BTW, does that mean it's alpha software or something? is 1.1.0 stable? If the problem comes from Localizer I suspect this patch might be the cause: def new_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug=0): id = get_ident() print "Localizer got thread id: " + str(id) Publish._requests[id] = request print "Request dict is now: " + str(Publish._requests) x = Publish.old_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug) try: del Publish._requests[id] except KeyError: # XXX # Some people has reported that sometimes a KeyError exception is # raised in the previous line, I haven't been able to reproduce it. # This try/except clause seems to work. I'd prefer to understand # what is happening. LOG('Localizer', PROBLEM, "The thread number %s don't has a request object associated." % id) except: print "Localizer got an exception" return x What happens if an exception occurs here: x = Publish.old_publish(request, module_name, after_list, debug) ?? If some clean up code is supposed to occur it might be held back by the fact that there's a reference to the request kept in the global dictionary ... At least that's my theory :) But then I'm mostly uneducated about the intricacies of exception handling at this level, though I've been forced to learn quickly :) I'd be curious to know at least if you can reproduce the leak by generating loads of errors on a Localizer enabled site? One option would also be to simply wrap it in a try:catch and see what happens there ... But I noticed 1.1.0a3 uses a different model for wrapping the request, so that just might do the trick. Thanks for a very cool and useful product BTW. This is combination with the TranslationService is saving me loads of time. Cheers, J.F. -----Original Message----- From: zope-dev-bounces(a)zope.org [mailto:zope-dev-bounces@zope.org]On Behalf Of "J. David Ibáñez" Sent: May 20, 2004 6:47 AM To: Tres Seaver Cc: Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca; brian(a)zope.com; chrism(a)plope.com; zope-dev(a)zope.org Subject: [Zope-dev] Re: Preliminary findings: Zope 2.7 leakage caused by errors Localizer (1.0.1) dynamically patches Zope, it stores a dictionary in the module "ZPublisher.Publish". The keys are integers, they are the values returned by Python's "thread.get_ident". The values are "ZPublisher.HTTPRequest.HTTPRequest" instances, they are not acquisition wrappers. Jean-François, which Localizer version do you use? Just to be sure we look at the same code. Tres Seaver wrote: > Jean-Francois.Doyon(a)CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca wrote: > >> Gents, >> >> In following to the discussions regarding the leakage zope.org and my >> site >> suffer from, I've done some testing, and here's what I've found. >> >> First of all, the leak does seem to occur when errors occur. Unlike >> what >> Chris suggested, I still suffer from this leak even when I completely >> remove standard_error_message. >> >> How I tested: >> >> I use JMeter, and a 99% identical box, dedicated for testing: >> >> - RH 7.3 >> - Python 2.3.3 compiled with ./configure and no options >> - Zope 2.7 + a variety of products, both custom and well known (CMF, >> Localizer, etc ...) >> >> I look at my error log on my main site to see the types of errors >> coming up >> and note the URL/parameters. >> Such errors include KeyErrors, a RecursionDepth error, a >> Method-something-or-other error, and so on. >> >> I setup JMeter with multiple concurrent threads and run it. Within >> minutes >> I can see refcounts growing abnormally on the test server. >> >> I then shut everything down and minimize the caches. The following >> are left >> around that shouldn't be: >> >> Class May 19, 2004 1:52 pm May 19, 2004 2:26 pm Delta >> Acquisition.ImplicitAcquirerWrapper 1025 1309 +284 >> ZServer.HTTPResponse.ZServerHTTPResponse 150 247 +97 >> ZPublisher.BaseRequest.RequestContainer 146 240 +94 >> ZPublisher.HTTPRequest.HTTPRequest 172 262 +90 >> >> Right now I've focused on finding out why the Requests are still around. >> >> Using the gc module, I've found that all leaked requests are being >> held by a >> dictionary. If I look at said dictionaries, this is what they might >> look >> like: >> >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/francais/mapsatoz>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/francais/mapsatoz>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/search/political>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/search/political>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/search/political>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/search/political>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/search/political>}, >> {3075: <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/age/youth/HEAD>, >> 4100: <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/debug>, >> 5125: <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/debug>, >> 6150: <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/english/search/political>, >> 7175: <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/vh_ >> >> site/english/maps/archives/5thedition/other/referencemaps>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/debug>}, >> {'REQUEST': <HTTPRequest, >> URL=/VirtualHostBase/http/atlastest2.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/VirtualHostRoot/_vh >> >> _site/misc_/WFSAdapter/sqlmethod.gif>} > > > I know that the Localizer product does (or used to do) some kind of > magic to make the REQUEST available to code as a "global". Can you > reproduce this data without that product present? > >> >> NOTE: I had to hack the __repr__ of HTTPRequest not to use >> self['URL'] since >> it seems that attribute is unavailable in a closed request. I use >> PATH_INFO >> instead. >> >> Most of the time I get the dictionary with the 'REQUEST' key. Those >> dictionaries with int's as keys are ones generated by the >> ExternalMethod I >> use to run the code to debug ... So even errors raised while trying >> to debug >> this leaks a dictionary that holds on to the request(s). >> >> Said dictionary does not seem to be referred to by anything, at least >> not >> anything the gc module can find (gc.get_referrers()). One possible >> situation is that said dictionary is actually part of the >> HTTPRequest, and >> we have a cyclic reference problem. I don't think so however, I've >> looked >> at the HTTPRequest instances, and they have nothing in them other than >> strings, lists, basic dict's and an HTTPResponse instance. I'll take >> another look to be sure. > > > Again, I would be looking at the Localizer's module-level globals for > this one. > >> Next step is too look at the Wrappers and see what they're all about and >> what's holding them there. > > > The wrappers are almost certainly there because the request is holding > on to objects, which hold on to others, etc. > >> I'm hoping this information might give a clue to someone who knows Zope >> error handling better than I as to what might be the problem here ... >> Also I >> understand zope.org suffers from this? :) >> >> Based on this information also, I have no reason to believe this is >> caused >> by product code ... I have to guess it's a Zope bug? >> >> In some ways this is motivating me to reduce the number of errors >> that could >> occur, but because ALL errors seems to cause the problem, I >> ultimately have >> no control over it and under certain circumstances I suffer heavily from >> this. 404's alone probably cause this (I'm plannign to test that >> explicitely as well). >> >> Thoughts, suggestions, comments welcome ... > > > I am CC'ing Juan-David, in case he may be able to offer any insights > from the perspective of the Localizer product. > > Tres. -- J. David Ibáñez Founder and CTO of Itaapy <http://www.itaapy.com> 9 rue Darwin, 75018 Paris Tel +33 (0)1 42 23 67 45 / Fax +33 (0)1 53 28 27 88 _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev(a)zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Zope-Dev May 2004