2 Mar
2001
2 Mar
'01
10:07 p.m.
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
At 03:53 PM 3/2/01 -0500, R. David Murray wrote:
I could be wrong, but I didn't read what Phillip wrote as saying he was suggesting TransWarp as a player in the Module Persistence implementation, but rather that he wanted people to see the value of TransWarp first hand so that they would want to make sure that Module Persistence and TransWarp could play together....
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. :)
Ah, ok. Now, Evan's suggestion of putting the marshalled module in the ZODB is quite a bit simpler; maybe that's what everyone has in mind. We haven't discussed this stuff here at DC lately. Shane