On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Antonio Cuni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 16/11/10 03:17, Dan Stromberg wrote: > >> >> Yes, the dbm module in pypy is basically like the bsddb module in cpython. >> >> cpython includes modules for bsddb, gdbm, and more. >> >> I tend to prefer gdbm over bsddb, because I've seen bsddb databases get >> corrupt too many times - EG, when a filesystem overflows. bsddb might be >> a >> little faster though; I've never compared their performance. >> > > > So, if I understand correctly you are saying that we should rename our > dbm.py to bsdb.py, and write a new dbm.py which can use either bsdb or gdbm? > I think it's anydbm that can use whatever among dbm, bsddb, gdbm and dumbdbm, as it sees fit. TTBoMK, it's not until python 3.x that dbm becomes a sort of unifying module hierarchy. > Sounds fine, do you feel like implementing it? :-) > > Moreover, I also agree with amaury that your code is very similar to the > one in the current dbm.py, so we should maybe try to refactor things to > share common parts between the twos. > I'd be happy to. Would sharing based on inheritance or a more functional approach be preferred?
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
