Hi there,

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Sean Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> i dont think you can compare ZODB to gemstone's products. i've looked at
> both over the last few months with a decent level of depth and the gemstone
> from a programmer's standpoint is infintately easier to use. no special
> classes, no nothing really. just put anything persistent in a global
> dictionary and blam its done.

The ZODB can be used that way; the root object *is* a global
dictionary. Admittedly Persistent is necessary to make sure that
attributes changes are persisted; this may be nicer in Gemstone. Or do
you mean any global dictionaries are persisted?

How does Gemstone implement efficient querying or indexing?

I know the PyPy people have a demo where multiple interpreters share
objects transparently, so perhaps this is closer to what Gemstone
does.

> pull it back out and there it is again, object pointers fully intact. store
> in 2 different directories, modify in one, blam! modified in the other.

I'm not sure how this is different than using the root object to store
objects and ZEO?

Regards,

Martijn
_______________________________________________
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