> > Do you know that there already is a project for OR-Mapping in Zope
> > there are two ...)?
> Yes, and I think the projects need to look into replacing parts of ZODB
> rather than adding complexity.  ZODB has pieces that can be split apart
> and replaced as needed, such as caching, persistence, transactions, the
> "pickle jar", the multi-threaded connection factory, and the storage
> layer.  I'm hoping we can achieve OR mapping by only replacing the
> "pickle jar", i.e. Connection.py.

The current design plans of SmartObjects are mainly based on the assumption
that we will not be able to change Zope itself. This is not a dogma for us,
however. I guess doing OR-mapping in the Zope core would be fine with us ;-)

But I am quite sure it will not solve ALL issues SmartObjects is going to
tackle. One of the things we want to accomplish is "better ZClasses".
Another thing is queries: You enumerated a couple of reasons why people
would use SQL instead of ZODB. One is integration of legacy data of course.
But the more important one for us is that we still believe that even with
ZCatalog Zope can not really do efficient "croos-tree" queries in all cases.
A query like "Give me all users who have bought this and that product and
are aged 20 or above" can not be handled by the catalog, I think. Same with
the appointment things in our groupware project: While it is trivial for SQL
to return me all appointments all members of my project have on a specific
day (security is handled by the SmartObjects folders' methods in that case),
ZODB/ZCatalog would only be able to resolve this question if either all
appointments are stored in a central folder (what about security then?) or
everything is cataloged (again, the standard ZCatalog does not handle
security here, right?)

What I need is an object-oriented storage (and I agree that ZODB is one of
the best of them) that can efficiently be queried "cross-tree". One
different approach to this topic could be a better ZCatalog (maybe one that
stores the catalog in relational tables).

> > "Ours" is SmartObjects
> > (http://demo.iuveno-net.de/iuveno/Products/SmartObjects). Also see the
> > mailing list archive at
> > http://imail.iuveno-net.de/pipermail/smartobjects/.
> Kapil gave Jim and I a good introduction to SmartObjects yesterday.  So
> far, it seems a lot like ZPatterns in that it mandates a new database
> access API rather than trying to be transparent like ZODB.

I think whether SmartObjects (in the current design) can be called
"transparent" depends on the level. On the user level, they will be. You can
Add them to folders, cut&paste them, upload them via FTP etc. The Zope
security API is also used. So they are much more transparent than direct
connections to LDAP, SQL, or to the file system (o.k. for the filesystem
extFile does this already). Some of the API will definitely be needed: A
SmartObject will have to be connected to databases like SQL-DAs or
LDAPAdapter have to. So there has to be a ZMI-Plugin, and there has to be an
API for that.

SmartObjects is more of a programming framework than just adding OR-Mapping
to Zope. So if we can solve the storage and query parts more efficiently by
just having Zope itself extended a bit, this would be very cool ...


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

Reply via email to