On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Christian Tismer <tis...@stackless.com> wrote:
> Hi friends,
> I'm trying to work with ZODB. (!)
> Coming from durus development since a couple of weeks, I am
> spoiled by simplicity.
> Actually, I'm annoyed by durus' incapability to accept patches,
> so I'm considering to put my efforts into ZODB.
> On the other hand, ZODB tries to become small and non-intrusive,
> but looking at its imports, this is still not a small package, and I'm
> annoyed of this package as well.
> - missing
> the zc.zlibstorage module is missing, IMHO.
I don't understand this statement.
> besides that, zc.zlibstorage was not maintained since quite a while
> and imports ZOPE3.
It's still maintained, but hasn't required maintenance in some
This is nonsensical. It depends on ZODB and zope.interface
(and zope.testing and manuel for tests).
> - discussion
> zc.zlibstorage requites a wrapper to add it to filestorage.
> I consider this an option, instead, and a simple boolean flag to switch
> it on and off.
> The module is way too simple to add all this config extra complication
> to even think of it.
The layered storage architecture made it very easy and low risk
to add this capability. Further, some have suggested that we
should use different compression schemes. Making this pluggable
makes it more flexible.
Having said that though, I agree that compression is something
people almost always want, and I can understand your desire to
make it simpler.
> - proposal:
> let me integrate that with ZODB and add a config option, instead of
> a wrapper.
I don't know what you mean by "integrate". I suggest, if you want
to make it simpler is to provide new ZConfig tags or Python factories
that make configuration simpler the way you'd like, but that do so
by assembling layers under the hood.
> Meant in a friendly, collaborative sense -- Chris
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org