In article <79mtt7f1r480...@mid.uni-berlin.de>, Diez B. Roggisch <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote: >Aaron Brady wrote: >> >> 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. > >Sounds like you are re-inventing the ZODB.
...or SQLAlchemy or pickles in a SQL BLOB or... -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "Many customs in this life persist because they ease friction and promote productivity as a result of universal agreement, and whether they are precisely the optimal choices is much less important." --Henry Spencer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
