Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> Hi shane,
> I think the motivation people want an RDBMS storage beneth zodb is
> because they understand RDBMSes these days are performant, relieable
> and can quiete easy maintained.
> I've seen Java implementations using this approach to achive persistens
> using as example "Powertier[tm]" to explicit map oop data to an RDBMS.
> I didnt like it because you have to map your objects each time you create
> a class, keep in mind not to infere with others etc...
> Would it not be better to improve the abilities of the Filestorage
> to handle updates better? May be most of the storage system in C?
> With logfiles like modern RDBMSes use to incorporate fast changes?
> However, to avoid pickling/unpickling and may be to update on
> attribute-change, we need the approach you mentioned.
> What about using a real oodb for zope? Dont remember any particular
> product name, but I heard something.
> Regards
> Tino Wildenhain

It would certainly be an interseting exercise to put Matisse or
Objectivity behind Zope as ZODB storage, however I think there will
always be kludgeyness because features of Zope wont directly map (like

I think the Berkeley storage option will eventually prove to be the
ticket. Probably sooner than later.

How about XML storage! 8^) You think startup times are slow now...

| Casey Duncan
| Kaivo, Inc.

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to