[storm] RFC: Storm with Pylons and Repoze.tm2

[Olaf Conradi]

2008/7/28 Olaf Conradi <olaf at conradi.org>:
> Hi,
>
> 2008/7/28 James Henstridge <james at jamesh.id.au>:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Olaf Conradi <olaf at conradi.org> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I modified the Zope module for Storm to use repoze.tm2 as transactions
>>> and add a middleware layer for use with Pylons.
>>
>> This sounds like a useful feature, although I do worry about the code
>> duplication.  I've been looking at using Storm with Django recently,
>> and am reusing the Zope transaction manager there too (since Django
>> doesn't offer any kind of global TM).
>>
>> Repeating all the synchronizer/data manager code for each of these
>> systems would mean that problems would need to be fixed multiple times
>> instead of once (and there are things I'd like to see changed in the
>> way we hook up stores to the TM).
>
> I duplicated the code as a proof of concept. We could move the generic
> parts to a new package.
>
> Something like storm.transaction and create zstorm.py for zope and
> tmstorm.py for repoze.tm.
> And put the helper classes in a separate file, transaction.py or
> something like that?
>
>> Was there anything preventing you from using the ZStorm class directly
>> for your purposes?  You could probably still use the Paste registry as
>> a way of accessing the singleton rather than the Zope's utility
>> system.
>
> I don't have zope installed on my system and for repoze.tm2 I just
> need the zope transaction package.

Ehm, I meant I just need zope.interface and transaction, next to repoze.tm2.

The following is Zope specific:
> (from zope.testing.cleanup import addCleanUp and from
> ZODB.POSException import TransactionFailedError)
> TransactionFailedError is in transaction.interfaces too.
>
> I think global_zstorm = ZStorm() and addCleanUp(global_zstorm._reset)
> should be in a separate file, like I did with storm.tm.session.
>
>> As for the actual code in your branch, it needs tests.  This will be
>> less of a problem if you can reuse the existing tested code more
>> though :)
>
> Yeah, I knew this response would come ;)
> I'll have a go at it.

  -Olaf