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

[Michael R. Bernstein]

On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 12:48, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> At 12:16 PM 03/11/02 -0800, 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.
> 
> Woah there Micheal.  I never once mentioned ZODB.  If we fix our
> thinking in terms of the technology, we lose sight of the real design
> issues, which have nothing to do with choosing technology.  If all you
> have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> 
> My diagram was designed to show that whatever abstraction Chandler
> data takes should have its own layer.  There's no need to diagram the
> internals of ZODB... if you like, replace "Data" in my diagram with
> "ZODB".

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.

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.

Cheers,

Michael Bernstein.