Third rant, dear Zope-Friends (and I mean it as friends!).

In an attempt to make the ZODB a small, independant package, ZODB
has been split into many modules.

I appreciate that, while I think it partially has the opposite effect:

- splitting BTrees apart is a good idea per se.
   But the way as it is, it adds more Namespace-pollution than benefits:

   To make sense of BTrees, you need the ZODB, and only the ZODB!
   So, why should then BTrees be a top-level module at all?

   This does not feel natural, but eavesdropping, pretending as something
   that is untrue.

I think:

 - BTrees should either be a ZODB sub-package in its current state,

 - or a real stand-alone package with some way of adding persistence as
   an option.

* there is a conclusion following as well.

Thanks for audience this far ;-)

cheers - chris

Christian Tismer             :^)   <>
Software Consulting          :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121     :    *Starship*
14482 Potsdam                :     PGP key ->
phone +49 173 24 18 776  fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
      whom do you want to sponsor today?

For more information about ZODB, see

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -

Reply via email to