Aaron Brady wrote: > Hi, please forgive the multi-posting on this general topic. > > Some time ago, I recommended a pursuit of keeping 'persistent > composite' types on disk, to be read and updated at other times by > other processes. Databases provide this functionality, with the > exception that field types in any given table are required to be > uniform. Python has no such restriction. > > I tried out an implementation of composite collections, specifically > lists, sets, and dicts, using 'sqlite3' as a persistence back-end. > It's significantly slower, but we might argue that attempting to do it > by hand classifies as a premature optimization; it is easy to optimize > debugged code.
<snip/> Sounds like you are re-inventing the ZODB. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
