Ah! this makes more sense, the idea of persistent properties even fits with this idea, though a true write-in-place property might be even better for some applications ;) Next time I'll read the whole thread and not the last post in it! > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Withers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 1:05 PM > To: Jon Franz > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Persistence ( was Thread Safe Counting ) > > > 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 ;-) > > cheers, > > Chris > _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )