[Dev] Object persistence merits, and questioning assumptions (Re: [Dev] ZODB is not a Storage Technology)

[Titus Brown]

-> Well, to my mind, Python + object persistence == ZODB. Unless Chandler
-> has some requirements that are not met by a general purpose transparent
-> persistence mechanism for Python objects, there doesn't seem to be a
-> reason to develop a new persistence system from scratch.

nota bene: there's a 'Persistence SIG' that is talking about how to
create a set of interfaces that can be used to provide persistence
mechanisms for Python objects.  Indications so far suggest that it will
be similar to ZODB, for better or for worse ;), so I don't see anything
wrong with planning around a ZODB-like thingy if it has to be done.

That list might be a better place to talk about Python object persistence,
all things considered; this list is getting awfully cluttered with discussions
about, clarifications of, and misunderstandings of fairly specific
technologies!

--titus