On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
>>> ZODB 5. :)
>> I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
>> effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
>> anything depends on BTrees).
> FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.
> MappingStorage used BTrees.
> There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
> but I suppose they could be fixed.
> I just don't think the win is that great
> in separating BTrees at this time.

I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency from
ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a separate PyPI
distribution to make it more visible to potential users outside of the
ZODB community, e.g.

To do that, refactoring tests shouldn't be required. I guess it could
be argued that the fsBTree should be part of the ZODB rather than
BTrees distribution, but leaving it where it is would be much easier.

For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

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

Reply via email to