I've made a new transaction release with the changes we've discussed
recently, as well a threading-related bug fix.
The retry iterator goodness won't work with ZODB until the next ZODB
release (after 3.10.0a2).
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
___
For more informatio
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 20:16 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> >> C. I'd really like to be able to configure what the root object is as
> >> database creation time. That way it can be application specific.
> >
> > That sounds reasonable, but doesn't address the default behavior.
>
Jim Fulton wrote:
>> C. I'd really like to be able to configure what the root object is as
>> database creation time. That way it can be application specific.
>
> That sounds reasonable, but doesn't address the default behavior.
Default would be an OOBTree for me...
Scales, no thinking or scary
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> A. Change ZODB so that new databases have BTrees as root objects.
>>
>> This has the advantage that BTrees are scalable. It has a number
>> of down sides:
>>
>> - BTrees should only be used when keys are known t
Jim Fulton wrote:
> A. Change ZODB so that new databases have BTrees as root objects.
>
>This has the advantage that BTrees are scalable. It has a number
>of down sides:
>
>- BTrees should only be used when keys are known to have a stable
> ordering. If we had a scalable hash d
>
> The root object is a special kind of place. I like the idea of a
> warning if more than say 99 objects are attached. It's always a
> good idea to keep the front door clean -- you never know who is
> coming to tea!
>
___
For more information
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/12/10 13:21 , Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 5/12/10 13:07 , Jim Fulton w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/12/10 13:21 , Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 5/12/10 13:07 , Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> B. Change ZODB so that the root object is a variant of per
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/12/10 13:07 , Jim Fulton wrote:
>> B. Change ZODB so that the root object is a variant of persistent
>> mapping that either refuses to store more than a small number of
>> object
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/12/10 13:07 , Jim Fulton wrote:
> B. Change ZODB so that the root object is a variant of persistent
>mapping that either refuses to store more than a small number of
>objects, or at least issues a warning when more than a small
>number
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> B. Change ZODB so that the root object is a variant of persistent
> mapping that either refuses to store more than a small number of
> objects, or at least issues a warning when more than a small
> number of objects is stored.
A variation
It occurs to me that it would be useful, at the application level, to
have some measure of an object's record size. This would, for
example, be a better basis for OOBucket splits than item count.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
___
For more information about ZODB, s
A common mistake for new users is to treat the database root
object as a big collection. There are 2 problems with this:
1. The current root object implementation isn't scalable.
2. Making the root object an application collection reduces flexibility
because the database can effectively only
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Ryan Noon wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> I'm really sorry for the miscommunication, I thought I made that clear in my
> last email:
> "I'm wrapping ZODB in a 'ZMap' class that just forwards all the dictionary
> methods to the ZODB root and allows easy interchangeability with m
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Ryan Noon wrote:
...
> (a pointer to relevant documentation would be really
> useful)
A major deficiency of ZODB is that there is effectively no standard
documentation.
I'm working on fixing this.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
_
Hi.
I was wondering if there's a specific reason why repozo does not
backup or create index files, whenever it does a full backup.
I understand that creating index files for incremental backups is
probably hard, but for a full backup it should be possible. Recreating
the index file after restorin
16 matches
Mail list logo
