Open Source Applications Foundation

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

Eric Gerlach Sun, 03 Nov 2002 14:25:47 -0800


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 01:44 PM 03/11/02 -0800, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
 >On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 12:48, Eric Gerlach wrote:
 >> 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.

Sorry about that Micheal, in my mind I was more objecting to the
diagram modification than the text itself.  As I said in my another
email, what evidence is there that object persistence is the way to
go?

 >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.

Cheers,

Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQE9xaJonuiuBLkZNokRAnVEAJ9hMGG1A99wehuCEasZdSrI9wklhQCgpd5G
WgeDWh6KcNk9nDBtpPajihA=
=Rxac
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----