> 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]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to