Phillip J. Eby writes:

At 10:29 PM 5/3/00 -0500, Jimmie Houchin wrote:

...

I think the Rack system can, from my understanding, handle the requirements I listed in my post. Basically, the ability to place certain objects with their own distinct storage characteristics in an appropriate storage.

That is precisely what they were designed for. Late last year, Ty Sarna and I were doing extensive analysis of the performance of the standard FileStorage under high write loads and large data sets, followed by consulting with Digital Creations to explore alternatives. What we ended up with was realizing that there had to be a way to have (effectively) class-by-class storage management. We took some ideas we had used previously for SQL applications in Zope/ZPublisher, plus a few design patterns from Coad and other sources, and came up with Rack and Implementor (now called Specialist).

...

What would complement Rack storage well and is basically the topic is multifile ZODB. If the ZODB had multifile capability and each Rack could name it's file and path that the ZODB uses. Then we would have an excellent balance between transparency of storage and capabilities.

Yes. But not so much multifile ZODB, as multi-*storage* ZODB or multi-ZODB. I'd like to see a way for getting at (and managing) connections to other ZODB's from within the "primary" ZODB. Rack already has the dropdown and some stub routines for using this; all I need is what to put in 'em. :)

I believe Michel mailed out an idea about having Zope "mount" (don't like this term because it conjures up NFS ghosts. Boo!) specific storages at startup. Kind of a "this is the path/connection where you can find this part of the tree" Then the valid ones are available to fill your list. All my best, Jason Spisak CIO HireTechs.com 6151 West Century Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90045 P. 310.665.3444 F. 310.665.3544 Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.