[Dev] ZODB for object persistence [Was: ZODB is not a Storage Technology]

[Michael R. Bernstein]

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 
> persistence.

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?

Michael Bernstein.