[Dev] ZODB is not a Storage Technology (Re: other formats )
Michael R. Bernstein
webmaven at lvcm.com
Sun Nov 3 13:51:53 PST 2002
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 13:09, David McCusker wrote:
> Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
> > The ZODB is not in and of itself a Storage technology. It is a Python
> > object persistence layer, that has a pluggable storage back-end.
> I'm just learning about ZODB, so thanks for clueing me in faster. Now
> I know little but later I expect to get into the nitty gritty details.
> So it's kind of the top interface to a storage technology, and it has
> a pluggable backend, which is great. Mostly transparent systems for
> objects are a good idea.
> (Totally transparent persistence with no developer control can turn
> into trouble. It's a good idea to have a commit() method, or anything
> else that puts developers in the loop for deciding when saves matter.)
> When working in high level dynamic languages, especially delicious
> untyped ones (well, typed values but untyped variables) like Python,
> having object persistence at a high level is a great developer benefit.
> [snip stuff about Berkely DB]
> > All the ZODB really cares about is transparently persisting Python
> > objects and their attributes.
> That sounds like an elegant degree of simple focus, and transparently
> persisting objects is a good goal and a nice service. I could also
> look into the way it does this, in case tweaking it is useful. (Who
> knows, maybe slight variations in coding have performance effects.)
> Does anyone want to lecture on how ZODB works inside? Maybe other
> folks would find such a presentation useful on this dev list. Not
> that I want to turn the dev list into all storage all the time. Just
> tell me to knock it off when I get carried away.
I posted some information and links about the ZODB onto the list
I hope those help.
More information about the Dev