On 14 October 2012 23:33, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote: > 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.
Presumably the dependency tree would look something like: persistent < BTrees < ZODB < ZEO The persistent dependency is definitely less to swallow than the whole ZODB for a potential user of the BTrees package, but its still a complication and there's no urgent reason to make the change now. Smaller, iterative changes usually win. 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
