Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-11-07 Thread Jim Fulton
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 On 10/20/2012 01:47 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:

 I

 had the impression that Tres was proposing more. shrug


 I released BTrees 4.0.0, and created a ZODB branch for the (trivial)
 shift to depending on it:

   http://svn.zope.org/ZODB/branches/tseaver-btrees_as_egg/

 That branch passes all tests, and should be ready for merging.

Merged and released.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-21 Thread Hanno Schlichting
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
 I released BTrees 4.0.0, and created a ZODB branch for the (trivial)
 shift to depending on it:

I had to tweak the C header inclusion a bit, so that the winbot could
create binary eggs. There's a 4.0.1 release on pypi now, which has
eggs build for Python 2.6 and 2.7 in 32 and 64 bit variants.

   http://svn.zope.org/ZODB/branches/tseaver-btrees_as_egg/

 That branch passes all tests, and should be ready for merging.

+1

Hanno
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-20 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/20/2012 01:47 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:

I

had the impression that Tres was proposing more. shrug


I released BTrees 4.0.0, and created a ZODB branch for the (trivial)
shift to depending on it:

  http://svn.zope.org/ZODB/branches/tseaver-btrees_as_egg/

That branch passes all tests, and should be ready for merging.



Tres.
- -- 
===
Tres Seaver  +1 540-429-0999  tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com

- -- 
===
Tres Seaver  +1 540-429-0999  tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCC/WIACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4c8QCeNSG1owrfJy1WRU3R9OEGTVBi
Zx8An0PEnU0kpeYL1RkBlkQ5jfycw3vo
=rDzU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-19 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/14/2012 06:23 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
 On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver 
 tsea...@palladion.com wrote: ...
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always
 be done in ZODB 5. :)
 
 I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of 
 the effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I 
 don't think anything depends on BTrees).
 
 FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.
 
 MappingStorage used BTrees.
 
 There are ZODB tests that use BTrees, but I suppose they could be 
 fixed.
 
 I just don't think the win is that great in separating BTrees at 
 this time.
 
 I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency 
 from ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a
 separate PyPI distribution to make it more visible to potential
 users outside of the ZODB community, e.g. 
 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/


 
 I had the impression that Tres was proposing more. shrug

Nope.  I just meant to break BTrees out and have ZODB depend on it.  I
thought is would be helpful to decouple the release process a bit, e.g.
so that the pure-python BTrees stuff could move forward independently
of the bigger ZODB release cycle.

 To do that, refactoring tests shouldn't be required. I guess it 
 could be argued that the fsBTree should be part of the ZODB rather 
 than BTrees distribution, but leaving it where it is would be much 
 easier.
 
 Yup.
 
 If someone wants to do this in the next couple of days, it would be 
 welcome.  I really want to get these releases going. (And I have 
 limited time.)

I have split BTrees out to a separately-releasable project:

  http://svn.zope.org/BTrees/trunk/

If going forward with that is OK, I would be glad to do the work to:

 - Release BTrees

 - Update ZODB trunk to depend on it

by the end of the weekend.



Tres.
- -- 
===
Tres Seaver  +1 540-429-0999  tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCBcqUACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7peACcD/MaZw5p26Ac5S3mp0EO3gpd
c1gAoMrfgkqxh+ouy0Y22ERHFa2ONDB3
=K6VQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Hanno Schlichting
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 Goal: Give persistent, ZODB and ZEO their own release cycles.

In which distribution would BTrees end up in?

I think the pure-Python work for BTrees isn't yet finished, but I
could be wrong. But if we are extracting packages into separate
distributions, we should move BTrees out as well.

 I propose to release the following:

 - ZODB 4 (4.0.0a1 initially)

   New ZODB (not ZODB3) project that depends on a separate persistent
   project and that doesn't include ZEO.

 - ZEO 4 (4.0.0a1 initially)

 - ZODB3 3.11 (3.11.0.a1 initially) that depends on ZODB and ZEO and is
 otherwise empty.

 If there are no objections, I'll release these in a few days.

Sounds good.

Hanno
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Fulton
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 Goal: Give persistent, ZODB and ZEO their own release cycles.

 In which distribution would BTrees end up in?

Still ZODB.

 I think the pure-Python work for BTrees isn't yet finished, but I
 could be wrong.

Not sure.

 But if we are extracting packages into separate
 distributions, we should move BTrees out as well.

Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be
done in ZODB 5. :)

BTW, I expect to increase the tempo of ZODB and ZEO
  releases.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 10/14/2012 05:20 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu
 wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 Goal: Give persistent, ZODB and ZEO their own release cycles.
 
 In which distribution would BTrees end up in?
 
 Still ZODB.
 
 I think the pure-Python work for BTrees isn't yet finished, but I 
 could be wrong.
 
 Not sure.
 
 But if we are extracting packages into separate distributions, we
 should move BTrees out as well.
 
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
 ZODB 5. :)

I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
anything depends on BTrees).

 BTW, I expect to increase the tempo of ZODB and ZEO releases.

Yay.



Tres.
- -- 
===
Tres Seaver  +1 540-429-0999  tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB7LpAACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ6QbACgkLzap7zb/n0Bcc/b82AkYfG/
nPkAoIzF6jFO7lvr9lAN8dgLeIlN3ack
=AZ3M
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Fulton
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
...
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
 ZODB 5. :)

 I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
 effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
 anything depends on BTrees).

FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.

MappingStorage used BTrees.

There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
but I suppose they could be fixed.

I just don't think the win is that great
in separating BTrees at this time.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Laurence Rowe
On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
 ...
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
 ZODB 5. :)

 I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
 effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
 anything depends on BTrees).

 FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.

 MappingStorage used BTrees.

 There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
 but I suppose they could be fixed.

 I just don't think the win is that great
 in separating BTrees at this time.

I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency from
ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a separate PyPI
distribution to make it more visible to potential users outside of the
ZODB community, e.g.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/

To do that, refactoring tests shouldn't be required. I guess it could
be argued that the fsBTree should be part of the ZODB rather than
BTrees distribution, but leaving it where it is would be much easier.

Laurence
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Fulton
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
 On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
 ...
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
 ZODB 5. :)

 I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
 effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
 anything depends on BTrees).

 FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.

 MappingStorage used BTrees.

 There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
 but I suppose they could be fixed.

 I just don't think the win is that great
 in separating BTrees at this time.

 I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency from
 ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a separate PyPI
 distribution to make it more visible to potential users outside of the
 ZODB community, e.g.
 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/

I had the impression that Tres was proposing more. shrug

 To do that, refactoring tests shouldn't be required. I guess it could
 be argued that the fsBTree should be part of the ZODB rather than
 BTrees distribution, but leaving it where it is would be much easier.

Yup.

If someone wants to do this in the next couple of days, it would
be welcome.  I really want to get these releases going.
(And I have limited time.)

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Fulton
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
 On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
 ...
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
 ZODB 5. :)

 I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
 effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
 anything depends on BTrees).

 FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.

 MappingStorage used BTrees.

 There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
 but I suppose they could be fixed.

 I just don't think the win is that great
 in separating BTrees at this time.

 I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency from
 ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a separate PyPI
 distribution to make it more visible to potential users outside of the
 ZODB community, e.g.
 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/

I think if we released a package named BTrees and people looked at it and
saw that it was dependent on persistent and ZODB, they'd get pissed.

Let's leave BTrees alone for now.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev


Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

2012-10-14 Thread Laurence Rowe
On 14 October 2012 23:33, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
 On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
 ...
 Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
 ZODB 5. :)

 I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
 effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
 anything depends on BTrees).

 FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.

 MappingStorage used BTrees.

 There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
 but I suppose they could be fixed.

 I just don't think the win is that great
 in separating BTrees at this time.

 I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency from
 ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a separate PyPI
 distribution to make it more visible to potential users outside of the
 ZODB community, e.g.
 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/

 I think if we released a package named BTrees and people looked at it and
 saw that it was dependent on persistent and ZODB, they'd get pissed.

 Let's leave BTrees alone for now.

Presumably the dependency tree would look something like:

  persistent  BTrees  ZODB  ZEO

The persistent dependency is definitely less to swallow than the whole
ZODB for a potential user of the BTrees package, but its still a
complication and there's no urgent reason to make the change now.
Smaller, iterative changes usually win.

Laurence
___
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev