- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

Z-I with GCC 4
by Chris Spencer 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

I tried installing Zope Interface on FC4 using GCC 4, and I received the following error: running install running build running build_py running build_ext building 'zope.interface._zope_interface_coptimizations' extension gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -O2 -g -pipe -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=pentium4 -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fPIC -IDependencies/zope.interface-ZopeInterface-3.0.0/zope.interface -I/usr/include/python2.4 -c Dependencies/zope.interface-ZopeInterface-3.0.0/zope.interface/_zope_interface_coptimizations.c -o build/temp.linux-i686-2.4/Dependencies/zope.interface-ZopeInterface-3.0.0/zope.interface/_zope_interface_coptimizations.o Dependencies/zope.interface-ZopeInterface-3.0.0/zope.interface/_zope_interface_coptimizations.c:339: error: static declaration of ‘SpecType’ follows non-static declaration Dependencies/zope.interface-ZopeInterface-3.0.0/zope.interface/_zope_interface_coptimizations.c:73: error: previous declaration of ‘SpecType’ was here error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1 Does Zope not yet work with GCC 4? Is there anything I can do to work around this? Thanks, Chris Spencer

1 0

Zope unresponsive
by Aleksandr Vladimirskiy 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

Hello, My zope server has become unresponsive: when I attempt to start it all I can see in top is a python process fluctuating between 0 and ~30MB in res RAM using 30% CPU. When I try zopectl debug I get the following message after which zopectl exits: python2.3: Modules/ gcmodule.c:231: visit_decref: Assertion `gc->gc.gc_refs != 0' failed. I'm running Linux Fedora Core 3, Python 2.3.4-11, Zope 2.7.4-1 Thank you, Aleksandr

1 0

(no subject)
by Hitesh Shetty 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

Can somebody tell me where can i get manuals on zodb Thanx regards Hitesh

2 1

File System
by Hitesh Shetty 14 Jul '05

14 Jul '05

My name is hitesh i am currently working on a project which requires to build an Object Oriented File System, The application is curently running on ZODB and the application is in transit into an operating system One of the preferred ways was to build the file system from ZODB itself Kindly guide me on how to proceed Regards Hitesh Shetty

1 0

apelib performance
by Chris Kratz 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

Hello All, Our application contains about 38k objects running via apelib into the filesystem using the filesystem mapper. We have been extremely happy with the ability to use version control on everything in zope which apelib affords us as well as allowing our developers to use editors/ide of choice. The problem we keep running into is performance. On even fast machines, right after zope starts up, it is extremely slow. Once the cache get's populated, the site runs as normal (we have the cache set to 10k objects). On a server, we set the scan-interval to 5 minutes or higher. But on our development boxes, we have the scan-interval set to 1s. This allows changes as they are made on the file system to show up in zope for testing immediately. This works quite well, but is very, very slow for developing under unless you have a pretty heavy duty processor. In profiling this, it doesn't appear to be I/O bound (as I would have guessed), but instead processor bound. Profiling points to Apelib as being the bottleneck (getmtime, getannotations, compile, etc). To verify this, I copied our application back into a standard zope storage and the performance after startup was night and day different. Very snappy. Has anyone found a way to make apelib faster, or have hints on performance tuning? Is there a better way then apelib to get zope objects (dtml, python scripts, zsql statements) into text files? Thanks for your time, -Chris

2 1

RAMCacheManager and object size
by Florent Guillaume 12 Jul '05

12 Jul '05

The RAMCacheManager does a costly pseudo-pickling of the objects it stores to compute their size, but that information is only used in the statistics screen. 1. how about not computing size by default? 2. or, how about using the size to have a cache threshold based on the size. That would help manage memory consumption better. Has anybody done something like that? Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg(a)nuxeo.com

5 7

Default ZODB cache size
by Florent Guillaume 10 Jul '05

10 Jul '05

How about boosting the default ZODB cache_size to something less ridiculous than the default 4000 ? I propose changing etc/zope.conf.skel to have an explicit value of 20000. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg(a)nuxeo.com

3 3

bridging Zope core interfaces - a small proposal
by yuppie 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Hi! Five comes with some code that bridges Zope 2 interfaces to Zope 3 interfaces. This way Zope 2 interface definitions can be reused without adding redundant code. This is quite useful, but doesn't work for Zope core interfaces: Five depends one many Zope core packages and using Five code in these packages creates circular imports. I propose to move the Five bridging code (bridge.py, fiveconfigure.createZope2Bridge and related tests) to the Interface package of Zope 2. Five would still ship with a copy of that code for Zope 2.7 backwards compatibility. Any comments? If there are no objections, I'll check in these changes. Cheers, Yuppie

2 4

Re: [Zope-Checkins] CVS: Packages/ZODB - FileStorage.py:1.135.6.9
by Chris Withers 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Ooooo... is this surfaced through the Zope undo tab? Chris Tim Peters wrote: > Update of /cvs-repository/Packages/ZODB > In directory cvs.zope.org:/tmp/cvs-serv29971/ZODB > > Modified Files: > Tag: Zope-2_7-branch > FileStorage.py > Log Message: > UndoSearch._readnext(): Add the transaction size to the return value. > > > === Packages/ZODB/FileStorage.py 1.135.6.8 => 1.135.6.9 === > --- Packages/ZODB/FileStorage.py:1.135.6.8 Mon Feb 28 16:20:41 2005 > +++ Packages/ZODB/FileStorage.py Tue Jun 14 16:46:32 2005 > @@ -2374,6 +2374,7 @@ > d = {'id': base64.encodestring(tid).rstrip(), > 'time': TimeStamp(tid).timeTime(), > 'user_name': u, > + 'size': u64(tl), > 'description': d} > d.update(e) > return d > > _______________________________________________ > Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins(a)zope.org > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins > -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

2 1

[Zope 2] Skipping beta releases?
by Andreas Jung 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Hi, the current release model of Zope 2 is based on doing at least one beta release for minor releases (Zope 2.7.X where X > 0). I have the strong impression that beta releases are not adopted and tested by most people. They usually use the "final" version of a release. So most bugs are discovered in final releases and not in beta releases. People interested in the most current version can and do download the sources from the CVS or SVN. So I propose to skip beta releases for minor releases in the future. Alpha and beta releases are fine for major releases. Beta releases for a minor release can be made if there are some changes or fixes that must be tested by people. Any comments? Andreas

5 6