On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Binger David wrote:

On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:

On the other hand, it seems
clear that cross-storage references make the system as a whole
(software + people) less reliable.

I don't agree in general.

Uh. I thought we were talking about reported POSKeyErrors that would not exist if there were no such thing as cross-storage references. I don't understand what there is to disagree with here. Are you saying that cross- storage
references reduce the risk of other application-breaking conditions?

We, ZC, are using cross-database references quite productively in a number of applications.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but low-level cross-site references seem like "secret" weakrefs. Maybe we'd be better off if they were explicit, higher- level objects,
used and dereferenced intentionally where required.

I don't object to this approach. I'll note that we had an approach like this before for Zope (mounts) and it had plenty of disadvantages of it's own, including injecting Zope-specific code into ZODB.

If someone can make something like this work without modifying ZODB, I won't object.

Right.  There is no reason for this approach to involve ZODB at all.
If broken "references" must be tolerated, I'm suggesting that they should be dealt
with in application/Zope-level code, not in ZODB.

I think you are being naive. This isn't a new application. Perhaps you should study the old Zope 2 mounting code.

In any case, I'm not going to argue the point any further.


Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

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

Reply via email to