[ZODB-Dev] Re: Possible contributions to ZODB

[Gary Poster]

On Feb 3, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:

> Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>>> I have some code that might be worth putting into ZODB.
>>>
>>> There are three bits.
>>>
>>> - Two flavors of persistent queue.
>> [...]
>> I'm a bit surprised there was so little discussion: ZC has needed  
>> a persistent queue several times in the past.  Whether the queue  
>> would be based on what I proposed or on something else someone  
>> else has, it seems like it would be a good thing to have.
>> However, with only Julien replying I don't think that's enough to  
>> push it further.  I'll keep it in zasync until/unless some better  
>> option comes around.
>
> Like Julien I'd like to encourage you to put it in the core. I'd  
> say, in the "persistent" module.

OK: I'll push this a bit more then.  Thanks to you and Julien for  
your encouragement, and for Julien's offer of help.

> If you want unit testing without ZODB dependency, I think you  
> should just synthesize states by hand, and test the conflict  
> resolution method.

True, that would work; and since I agree that the queue belongs in  
persistent, that's probably what I should do.

> Because in fact in you current unit tests, you're testing much  
> more, including the ZODB mechanisms that detect concurrently  
> modified objects in different connections and regenerate old state  
> from the database, etc. It's not strictly needed (and is a lot of  
> setup).

True.  I still like what I did, because I think it gives a fuller  
story for someone reading the doctest (and I don't mind the fact that  
the test relies on ZODB, despite classic unit test advice), but it  
can't go in persistent, so I think the point is moot.

I'll push this farther along.

Gary