On 6/29/05, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Tim Peters]
> >> ....
> >> As before, I'd run a different ZEO server for each database.  I'm not
> >> sure that what you're doing here will be supported for much longer (or
> >> really even _is_ supported anymore -- see my last msg).
> 
> [Dieter Maurer]
> > I do not know whether it is supported but it works in ZODB 3.2.
> >
> > Why do you want to cancel this?
> 
> I didn't say I would cancel it / rip it out.  I said it's undocumented,
> untested, and that its status is unclear; and I quoted a comment from
> current ZODB source that strongly seemed to imply its author (probably
> Jeremy) believed it was already dead meat ("This argument is primarily for
> backwards compatibility with servers that supported multiple storages" --
> why did the comment use past tense if the current code still supports
> multiple storages?

I used the past tense because I thought we had decided to cancel the
feature at some point.  The feature itself has been around and
undocumented for much longer.  The reason I want to remove the feature
is that it adds complexity to the software and configuration without
providing much real benefit.  The benefit is that you get to run
several storages using a single ZEO server process and TCP port.  It's
probably not a good idea to use a single process for many servers,
although it might be convenient to use a single port.

Reasons to get rid of it (recalling these from the distant past):
- People were confused about what the feature actually did.  I helped
people several people debug problems that were caused by confusion
around this feature.
- It's probably better to run separate ZEO processes (possibly on
different machines).
- There would be less code to maintain and few features to test.

Jeremy
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/

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

Reply via email to