On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Sean Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> 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?
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org