Jeremy Hylton wrote: > > >>>>> "TP" == Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > ... > Also, it may not be necessary to have a TimeStamp object in ZODB 4. > There are three uses for the timestamp: tracking how recently an > object was used for cache evication, Time-stamp isn't used for this. > providing a last modified time to > users, and as a simple version number. This is certainly a hack. > In ZODB 4, the cache eviction may be done quite differently. Yup, or, with Toby Dickenson's patches, in ZODB 3. :) > The > version number may be a simple int. The last mod time will not be > provided for each object; instead, users will need to define this > themselves if they care about it. If they define it themselves, > they'd probably use a DateTime object, but we'd care much less about > how small it is. The TimeStamp type will still be useful for storage implementations that want compact time strings. I could imagine al alternate implementation that conformed to the new interface and retained the compact representation. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4