[Dev] ZODB for object persistence [Was: ZODB is not a Storage Technology]

Michael R. Bernstein webmaven at lvcm.com
Fri Nov 8 17:04:58 PST 2002

On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 13:51, John Anderson wrote:
> Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >  
> We're interested in ZODB for a couple reasons: transparent object 
> persistence is a big boon to productivity -- you don't have to write 
> code to get data in and out of a database and dealing with data in 
> native data structures is just much simpler.

Ok, that pretty much confirms my suppositions.

> As it turns out the Python 
> community has figured this out and they are working on a proposal to get 
> persistence built into Python 
> (http://www.python.org/sigs/persistence-sig/). It looks to me like ZODB 
> is a front runner for influencing the eventual Python standard for 
> persistence.

Yes, this is correct, especially now that PythonLabs (Guido et al) are
taking a direct hand in developing ZODB. In fact, I wouldn't be
surprised if the ZODB *becomes* that standard.

> Trouble is, ZODB has a bunch of problems, for example it's 
> dog slow. So I'd like to investigate what would be necessary to make 
> ZODB a better solution.

Are you talking about write performance or read performance? And are we
talking about the ZODB alone, or in the context of Zope?

Michael Bernstein.

More information about the Dev mailing list