[ZODB-Dev] Connection simplification

[Syver Enstad]

"Tim Peters" <tim at zope.com> writes:

> Would you like a hard error?  You didn't get one before (DB.open() returned
> None or hung).  

I forgot I wrapped the db.open call and threw a user defined exception
if it returned None, so for me it gives a hard error ;-)

> Python's logging module gives me a headache, but it's so
> elaborate it *may* be possible to insert a logging handler that triggers
> propagated exceptions for specific log messages.  If possible, that's the
> kind of general approach I'd rather take than adding optional arguments /
> config knobs all over the place.

As I said don't sweat it. Logging is probably superior to a hard error
anyway. 

> 
> That's great, but feel free to change your mind <wink>.  This is implemented
> on the ZODB trunk now, so you could try it now from a checkout, or wait for
> a ZODB 3.4a1 release (sorry, I have no estimate yet for when that may
> happen):
> 
>     svn.zope.org/repos/main/ZODB/trunk

BTW: How does one port a 3.2 database to 3.4. I am obviously using
extension class in my database stored objects. Are there any how-to's
on this?

> 
> Restoring usable semantics for waitflag=False would be a simple change, and
> I won't object if it would really help you.  "The problems" here were
> emergent, after dozens and dozens of "simple changes" got slammed in without
> docs or tests (or, in most cases, even code comments), until in aggregate
> they buried the code's original intents under mountains of optional
> behaviors nobody understands anymore.  If I put waitflag back in, it will be
> documented, and it will be tested.

As I said, don't bother to support waitflag=False behaviour. I really
appreciate that you clean up the code, and I don't want any cruft in the
codebase any more than you do.