Jerry wrote:
Just one point. The concept of abstraction to enable any SQL compatible RDBMS makes perfect sense, to a rigorously OO way of thinking. Ironically, strict adherance can sometimes lead down a path where a truly marvelous option is dismissed, simply because it is unique.
[snip]
The inherent features of PostgreSQL to allow user defined, inheritable datatypes, suggests remarkable synergies with the intention of the proposed DB Storage, if not with every stated goal. It seems a shame to ignore this possibility just because Oracle / MySQL have so much mindshare. When such a tool exists that excels at storing objects, in a tabular sort of way, should it's special talents be disregarded just to avoid overdependence on an incomparably suitable solution?
It hasn't much to do with mindshare... MySQL and Oracle (and actually InterBase as well) are frontrunning candidates for development of RelationalStorage because they already have Python DB-API2 compliant adapters written for them. Postgres can certainly handle it (AFAICT it's ideal), but I don't much feel like writing to a non-DBAPI compliant in the first cut as it limits the platform to *only* posgres initially, and I don't want to wrap the existing postgres da in a DB-API2 wrapper or anything (it's just no fun). Hopefully, once there is some code to poke at, people will modify it to make it work against their database of choice. -- Chris McDonough Digital Creations Publishers of Zope - http://www.zope.org