More in response to Shane than to Max M: I thought that one of the continuing justification for ObjectHubs was that hubids were consistent across multiple mounted storages, but oids were not? How could the universal id problem be addressed at a lower level than Zope2 or Zope3 in this case? Sean -----Original Message----- From: Max M [mailto:maxm@mxm.dk] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:47 AM To: Shane Hathaway Cc: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] RFC: RelationAware class for relations between objects Shane Hathaway wrote:

...

I was under the impression that the Objecthub is Zope specific. Is that so? Or is it a plain ZODB thing?

It's Zope specific. But in plain ZODB, you can achieve pretty much the same thing ObjectHub achieves using simple OIDs. So the relationship code should allow, but not require, direct references using OIDs.

That might make you wonder why we need an object hub at all. The difference between Zope and an average ZODB application is that Zope lets you create a large multiuser system with many security contexts. An object hub assists the process by restoring references in context (i.e. with the correct context wrappers.) A simple ZODB application generally has only one security context, so it doesn't need the extra complexity.

Then it starts to get amusing. One of the primary reasons for the objecthub was to enable relations. So if the relations get implemented in in ZODB but need some functionality, will it not end up as a duplication of efforts? regards max M _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )