Tres Seaver wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > Andrew Milton wrote:
> >>-1 for any scheme that involves diddling the ZODB to 'fix' pickles, because
> >>   you just know you're going to corrupt someone's ZODB, and that's just
> >>   noone's idea of fun.
> >
> > There are sensible ways of upgrading the ZODB. Zope 3 has had it since
> > 3.0 (called generations) and they've been working reasonably well for
> > these things.
> They aren't well-enough "battle tested" to make Andrew's point invalid,
> I think (there *are* no "large" ZODB-based Zope3 sites which have
> undergone generational upgrades).
> Frankly, anything which attempts to "fix pickles" in-place smells bad to
> me.  "Dump and reload" is how the RDBMS world handles this kind of
> problem, and it isn't because they don't have smart folks working on them.

You're right, as nice as generations might be, they can't work around some of 
architectural "flaws" of the ZODB. And, of course, they've not been "battle 
tested", but
who's going to battle test them until they are battle tested? Chicken... egg... 

So, do I take it that you're suggesting the upgrade strategy should entail some 
sort of


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to