> IMHO, Zope releases should, in this scenario, be configured by default to > use a custom_zodb.py file with ClientStorage over a socket at startup, > making the default config of Zope one that uses ZEO. Also, start scripts > should be distributed with options to support both the following: > - Zope's start script Start ZEO via ZEO's start.py, > wait for confirmation of loaded storages, > then start Zope's z2.py > - Separate shell scripts to start each > > The advantage to this is the ability get access to the ZODB in automation > and sysadmin scripts without taking Zope down. This should be transparent > to those who don't care, unless there is a huge performance difference > between directly using FileStorage, and using ClientStorage on a local > socket to the same end (is the protocol overhead really that much?)...
I'm not sure that such a drastic change can be done without breaking expectations set by previous Zope releases. But I'll let the Powers That Be decide on this -- I'm not touching the default configuration. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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 )
