On 3/2/06, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> >> persistence-3.6.0.egg (which would include persistent and BTrees
> >> modules).
> >> zodblib-3.6.0.egg (which would include ZODB and ZODB packages).
> >> transaction-3.6.0.egg (which would include only the transaction
> >> package).
> >> zconfig-2.3.1.egg (which would include only the ZConfig package).
> >> zodb-3.6.0.egg (which might be an empty "dependency" package that
> >> depended on persistence, transaction, zodblib, and zconfig).
> >> Anyone care?
> > First, "rah rah!".
I don't understand the eggs philosophy. (I succeeded in missing the
eggs talk twice at PyCon.) I don't think any of the pieces of ZODB
are very useful in isolation. You can't use persistent without
transaction, and there isn't much that uses transaction other than
ZODB. Same with BTrees, you can't use them without ZODB and they're
probably the most useful data structure in ZODB.
Software like DirectoryStorage, BDBStorage, or IndexedCatalog seem
like good candidates for separate packaging. ZConfig,
> > Second, zodblib seems unlikely to be useful alone, but maybe I'm
> > wrong, and even if I'm right there's precedent for that sort of
> > thing in packaging land, so what the hey.
> Well, I'm only an egg, as Michael Valentine would say, so I'm not
> sure what the right thing is.
> > Third, I'd guess that zodb would contain the stitching for zconfig-
> > to-zodb. It makes me wonder if a zodb-without-zconfig egg would be
> > feasible/useful, but that's probably for later navel-staring.
> Yeah, that'd be good. It's currently pretty dense in there.
> - C
> For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
> ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org