[Dev] ZODB is not a Storage Technology (Re: other formats )Michael R. Bernstein 03 Nov 2002 13:51:53 -0800
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 13:09, David McCusker wrote: > 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. > > I'm just learning about ZODB, so thanks for clueing me in faster. Now > I know little but later I expect to get into the nitty gritty details. > > So it's kind of the top interface to a storage technology, and it has > a pluggable backend, which is great. Mostly transparent systems for > objects are a good idea. > > (Totally transparent persistence with no developer control can turn > into trouble. It's a good idea to have a commit() method, or anything > else that puts developers in the loop for deciding when saves matter.) > > When working in high level dynamic languages, especially delicious > untyped ones (well, typed values but untyped variables) like Python, > having object persistence at a high level is a great developer benefit. > > [snip stuff about Berkely DB] > > > All the ZODB really cares about is transparently persisting Python > > objects and their attributes. > > That sounds like an elegant degree of simple focus, and transparently > persisting objects is a good goal and a nice service. I could also > look into the way it does this, in case tweaking it is useful. (Who > knows, maybe slight variations in coding have performance effects.) > > Does anyone want to lecture on how ZODB works inside? Maybe other > folks would find such a presentation useful on this dev list. Not > that I want to turn the dev list into all storage all the time. Just > tell me to knock it off when I get carried away. I posted some information and links about the ZODB onto the list already: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/dev/2002-October/000039.html http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/dev/2002-November/000077.html I hope those help. Michael Bernstein.
|