Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
kuwata-lab-products
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion pyTenjin Feature Requests
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Steve  
View profile  
 More options Jun 5 2009, 8:42 pm
From: Steve <unetright.thebas...@xoxy.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 5 2009 8:42 pm
Subject: Re: pyTenjin Feature Requests
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hello again,

This may be a bug and not a feature request.  I was reading through
the tenjin.py to make sure that you were handling gaememcache
invalidation.  I do not understand why you are marking the templates
with a timestamp from time.time() when it is created instead of with
getmtime().  I believe this opens up a scenario where old templates
can be served.

GAE allows you to have multiple live versions.  So you can have a v1
and v2 or dev and production.  Live versions share the same datastore
and memcache though.  So it is possible you could have this scenario
at a slow point in the middle of the night:

12:00 Update v1 (production) with new templates
12:05 Update v2 (development) with new templates
12:08 User connects to v1 enviornment and creates & memcaches template
with timestamp 12:08
12:10 Make v2 the live (production) enviornemnt
12:15 User connects to v2 (now production) and gets from memcache v1
template marked 12:08 timestamp
      BUG: Should be serving v2 template from disk with 12:05
timestamp

Because you can shift back to older versions (like in case of
discovering an error) not only should you be using the mtime to
compare, but I believe you should be doing an == compare, not just

>=.  Continuing the earlier example:

12:20 Memcache somehow expires v1 template (not likely, but it can
happen)
12:25 User cocnnects to v2 on new process, creates and memcaches v2
template with timestamp 12:05
12:30 Admin notices problem in v2 application and switches back to v1
12:35 User connects and gets memcached v2 template timestamp 12:05
      BUG: Should be serving v1 template with timestamp 12:00

Thanks for your consideration,
Steve


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google