On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Laurence Rowe <l...@lrowe.co.uk> wrote:
> 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/

I had the impression that Tres was proposing more. <shrug>

> 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.


If someone wants to do this in the next couple of days, it would
be welcome.  I really want to get these releases going.
(And I have limited time.)


Jim Fulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

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

Reply via email to