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. http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/ 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. Laurence _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
