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 think if we released a package named "BTrees" and people looked at it and saw that it was dependent on persistent and ZODB, they'd get pissed. Let's leave BTrees alone for now. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton 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 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
