-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim Peters wrote:
[Yair Benita]
... Reading this answer I understand that anything I store should be persistent, even if its a list I don't plan to edit.
I wouldn't say that. For example, for _most_ applications it would be foolish to create a subclass of Persistent to store an integer, as opposed to just storing an integer directly. I can conceive of (unlikely!) applications where there may be advantages to storing integers as perisistent objects, though.
As, for instance, where the integer changes much more frequently than the other attributes, which are large enough that re-storing them just because the integer attribute changed is painful. Making the attribute a persistent sub-object also eliminates the chance of a ConflictError based on changes to the other attributes. This is the use case which drives BTrees.Length, right? Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtw/D+gerLs4ltQ4RAnEqAJ9PKCCRriJR3Qt4AWrGCUGk1V6RFQCgxTEl 9waizE6T/pk8Tz/Tkul/4TA= =Uief -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----