On Fri, 2001-10-12 at 15:30, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
I don't think you'll ever manage referential integrity with ZODB. It's a Persistent Object Store, not a relational database. I really don't know why people have a problem with this concept, and feel the need to enforce some other meaningless (in this context) construct onto it. (Actually I do know why, but, I feel the need to postulate).
That was what I was trying (unsuccessfuly) earlier to state - that if you need a RDBMS, then use one; and if you are storing objects, then ZODB is the way to go. For me it always was clear, but to some there is no difference between a RDBMS and an object store. My earlier reference to ACID was to point out that your requirements/functionalities are different between the two, and there's a good/bad time to use either. For example, if you needed to support transactions over multiple pieces of data, why would you dump it in an object store? And if you needed OO functionality without any clear needs for referential integrity (and all that other database stuff), then why put it in a RDBMS?
Perhaps we should rename it from ZODB to ZOS, to stop people from drawing that inference. People might think it was an operating system I suppose.
I think the name is great. Here in Switzerland, many people try to pronounce acronyms (like "U.F.O." as "ufo") and watching them try to say "zodb" is really worth taking the time...