[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
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?
More information about the Dev