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
