Jon Franz wrote:
> So subclassing persistent will avoid changes to the object being stored and
> roll-backable in the ZODB? 

NO! read the posting again... Subclassing from persistent is HOW you make things
live in the ZODB. However, objects that subclass Persistent get their own pickle
jar, and so only make the ZODB grow by the size of themselves and their
attributes each time they change. In my counter's case, that's not a lot :-)

> Now, if only we could get this sort of
> store-in-place functionality on a more fine-grained level (like on
> individual
> properties) - we could avoid a lot of coding to prevent ZODB bloat with
> simple
> features.. Ie, if I were to make a 'persistent porperty' on a DTML method,
> I could store counter information in that property without worry
> of ZODB bloat.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens at some stage ;-)



Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to