Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 23, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, my concluding sentence would have been better written as
"Meanwhile, deciding that a community project require an O/R back end
over FileStorage or DirectoryStorage, as Florent argues, feels like a
significant case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"."
Argh, communication. That still could be too-easily misinterpreted,
and I didn't stare at it long enough before I sent it. One more try.
Meanwhile, deciding that a community project require any specific
backend--Ape, FileStorage, DirectoryStorage, or another--feels like a
mistake. Discarding FileStorage or DirectoryStorage, as Florent
argues, is a significant case of "throwing the baby out with the bath
water". We have at least three maintained and capable ZODB backends,
with different strengths and weaknesses, appropriate for different use
cases. Lets not jump to discard any of them.
I agree 100%. However, your concern is that projects will require a
specific ZODB backend, while my concern is that projects will dump ZODB
altogether. I think the latter is the greater risk, and people need a
middle ground so they don't isolate themselves from the rest of the
community. Ape could be a part of that middle ground.
Also, I did not intend to disparage the excellent FileStorage and
DirectoryStorage packages. I always tell people to use FileStorage or
DirectoryStorage unless they have a good reason not to, and the biggest
reason not to use FileStorage (through-the-web code is hard to put under
version control) is already disappearing with Zope 3.
Zope3-dev mailing list