On Aug 27, 2005, at 6:08 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Gary Poster wrote:
We have at least three maintained and capable ZODB backends, with
different strengths and weaknesses, appropriate for different use
cases. Lets not jump to discard any of them.
With current filesystem
I'm not convinced that Florent blog entry says what Gary thinks it
does, but I agree with Gary on the other stuff: It should be possible
by configuration, to switch out at least some parts to a relational
database.
The catalog indexes and metadata is a prime example of this. No, there
is nothing
On Aug 24, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm not convinced that Florent blog entry says what Gary thinks it
does,
Hopefully you can see where I would get my interpretation, though.
I'm happy to have Florent clarify on his return. This is a good
discussion in any case.
but
On 8/24/05, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully you can see where I would get my interpretation, though.
Yup.
ZODB catalog story has compelling advantages over an RDBMS catalog,
in addition to disadvantages.
I'm sure they do, although I'm not immediately aware of them (I would
be
Paul Winkler wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Missing powerful query concepts
---
Certain powerful query concepts like joins, available in a relational
setting, are missing. I've already run into a scenario where I wanted to
someting like this: given a bunch of
En/na [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrit:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Missing powerful query concepts
---
Certain powerful query concepts like joins, available in a relational
setting, are missing. I've already run into a scenario where I wanted to
someting like this: given
This is a general reply, Martijn just summed up many of the points so
nicely (as usual) that I'm using his email as a starting point...
From: Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] Florent's O-R blog entry
I have had some opportunity to work with the Zope 3 catalog
I recently read Florent's object/relational blog entry at http://
blogs.nuxeo.com/sections/blogs/florent_guillaume/
2005_08_11_object_relational . It's getting a bit old now, but I
didn't see much discussion (or a way to make a comment) so I thought
I'd bring it up here to invite shared
On Aug 23, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, my concluding sentence would have been better written as
Meanwhile, deciding that a community project require an O/R back
end over FileStorage or DirectoryStorage, as Florent argues, feels
like a significant case of throwing the baby
On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
In conclusion, the nebulous concept of enterprise applications
on Zope does not have a clear cut decision for or against an O/R
mapper such as Ape. The cost of O/R mappings is not
inconsequential, and the
Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, my concluding sentence would have been better written as
Meanwhile, deciding that a community project require an O/R back end
over FileStorage or DirectoryStorage, as Florent argues, feels like a
significant case of
Am 23.08.2005 um 20:36 schrieb Shane Hathaway:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
Argh, communication. That still could be too-easily
misinterpreted, and I didn't stare at it long enough before I
sent it. One more try.
Meanwhile, deciding that a
12 matches
Mail list logo
