[Dev] ZODB is not a Storage Technology (Re: other formats )

Eric Gerlach egerlach at canada.com
Sun Nov 3 14:20:53 PST 2002


At 01:36 PM 03/11/02 -0800, David McCusker wrote:
 >Eric Gerlach wrote:
 >> At 01:09 PM 03/11/02 -0800, David McCusker wrote:
 >>  >Does anyone want to lecture on how ZODB works inside?
 >>
 >> Just a quickie:  At this stage, does it matter?
 >
 >I don't know.  I'm with you in your other message when you say:
 >
 >Eric Gerlach wrote:
 > > That would be closer to what I intended, but I still think we
 > > shouldn't bind ourselves to particular technologies until we know what
 > > we need them for.  I can cite some hilarious post-mortem comments on
 > > projects that have failed because they chose a technology before they
 > > knew that it was what was needed.
 >
 >However, the general idea of transparent object persistence is a good
 >idea, and might be what is wanted without committing to a specific way
 >of doing it.  I thought I'd understand the context better under Python
 >if I heard more about how ZODB does it.  I could also go study it online
 >elsewhere, but other folks here wouldn't hear informed commentary.
 >
 >I could also just try to wing a description of how object persistence
 >works in general without paying attention to ZODB.  But it risks
 >drawing a resounding "we know that already!" if it's what ZODB does,
 >and if folks here are presumed familiar with it.  (I'm not yet.)

I'll stick my foot in my mouth as punishment for making that extremely out 
of context quip then. :)

I agree with you that transparant object persistance is good.  However, I 
don't see what the particulars of ZODB have to do with it.  If I understand 
the area properly, most object persistance systems have basically the same 
semantics.  If that's true then it doesn't matter what system we 
choose.  As far as I (a user and possible developer) am concerned, I'm not 
concerned with the internals of ZODB until I know what the need is.  Heck, 
it's possible to write our own object persistance system... why not do that?

To make a non-ending with a few questions: Who says we need object 
persistance in the first place?  Why not a traditional relational 
database?  Why not an abstract linking datastore?

Cheers,

Eric




More information about the Dev mailing list