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
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - [email protected]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
