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

Michael R. Bernstein webmaven at lvcm.com
Sun Nov 3 17:27:16 PST 2002


On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 14:25, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> 
>  At 01:44 PM 03/11/02 -0800, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
>  >
>  >Eric, please notice that I was replying to David's posting, where it
>  >was
>  >clear to me he was thinking of the ZODB as a Storage model, when it's
>  >really an abstraction layer on the order of what he was looking for.
> 
> Sorry about that Micheal, in my mind I was more objecting to the
> diagram modification than the text itself.

Hmm. David asked for more layers, so I added more layers. :-)

> As I said in my another
> email, what evidence is there that object persistence is the way to
> go?

As I said in that other thread, none, except that it's a heck of a lot
easier than dealing with Object-Relational mapping.

>  >I was trying to clear up a misperception, not advocating the ZODB
>  >per-se. Please notice I didn't label any part of the diagram 'ZODB'.
>  >I
>  >*can't* advocate the ZODB much, because I'm no more certain of the
>  >requirements that led to it's selection than anyone else on this
>  >list.
> 
> Well, at least we're on the same side :)  I'm trying to nip any basing
> of requirements off of technology in the bud.  There has been a lot of
> advocating of this and that technology, but no real talk about what
> role that technology will fill, or what the requirements for filling
> that role are.  Perhaps I percieved advocation where there was none.
> Again, mea culpa.

Well, I'd *like* to be able to advocate the ZODB, as I think it's a
really cool technology. A large part of why I started participating here
is because the OSAF announced Chandler would be based on Python, the
ZODB, and Mozilla. I have experience with Python and the ZODB (at least
within the context of Zope), so the prospect of working on a desktop
application I have a desparate need for using some of my favorite tools
was very attractive.

Nevertheless, your point is taken that we shouldn't assume the reasons
for those choices were good until we know what they are. However, I'm
not assuming their reasons were bad either. :-)

Cheers,

Michael Bernstein.




More information about the Dev mailing list