[Jürgen Herrmann]
> the question was wether DateTime instances (of the new implementation,
> which is yet to be coded) should mixin Persistent.

OK.  Since ZODB doesn't care whether you do, is there confusion about what
ZODB may or may not do in either case?  That is, what's the ZODB issue here?

Have you looked at what Zope3 does?  I believe it uses Python's new(ish)
datetime.datetime objects as a base, and those aren't persistent either.  In
Zope2-land, a DateTime.DateTime is a large object, and you may have _wanted_
to make them persistent just so they could lose most of their memory-hogging
state when ghostified.  The state for a datetime.datetime object is much
smaller, and I know Gary Poster gave a lot of thought to making pickles for
the timezone info in Zope3 efficient too.

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to