Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
- Policies to control whether multiple revisions are stored
or whether revisions are removed by packing on a object-by-object
or transaction-by-transaction basis.
You could keep significant historical revisions for important
Jim Fulton wrote:
- Policies to control whether multiple revisions are stored
or whether revisions are removed by packing on a object-by-object
or transaction-by-transaction basis.
You could keep significant historical revisions for important objects, such
as Wiki pages,
Lalo Martins wrote:
Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
half of silence. What's the status?
From our perspective, it's what it was then. We built it for
a customer who later decided they didn't want it. I'm
glad to hear you found it useful.
What about the other
At 08:10 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't think Data.fs will go away. I do expect it to be relagated to
initial evaluation and development projects. Use of Berkely DB in
transactional mode requires a significant andminstration commitment.
Log files need to be purged. Backup and
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
At 08:10 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't think Data.fs will go away. I do expect it to be relagated to
initial evaluation and development projects. Use of Berkely DB in
transactional mode requires a significant andminstration commitment.
Log files
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:10:15AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Lalo Martins wrote:
Please help stamp out Data.fs! :-)
I don't think Data.fs will go away. I do expect it to be relagated to
initial evaluation and development projects. Use of Berkely DB in
transactional mode requires a
ECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] OracleStorage, and possibly others
Lalo Martins wrote:
Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
half of silence. What's the status?
What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
dea
Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg
FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower
than FileStorage on writes. Reads are slow too but the slowness is somewhat
negated by caching.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:02:50AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
Of course it would, for the same reasons as OracleStorage (eg
FileStorage/Data.fs is inefficient)
Actually, it's the other way around. OracleStorage is 30-to-50 times slower
than FileStorage on writes. Reads are slow too
a report to the list.
- Original Message -
From: "Lalo Martins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] OracleStorage, and possibly others
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:02:50AM -0500, Chris McDon
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 04:28:26PM +, Ty Sarna wrote:
Lalo Martins wrote:
What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
dead for an year.
It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords!
Seriously, AFAIK it still works, and it's mainly just stalled waiting
for
Well, two betas of OracleStorage in one day, then a month and a
half of silence. What's the status?
What about the other Storage projects? BerkeleyStorage has been
dead for an year, and I heard pretty nasty words about
InterbaseStorage. What about someone who wanted to try to port
OracleStorage
12 matches
Mail list logo
