Thread-safe PostgreSQL adaptor?
Ok, pygresql is now DB-SIG compliant and thread safe. http://druid.net/pygresql What has to be done to create a one-database-connection-per-thread PyGreSQL database adapter? Given the recent influx of resources into PostgreSQL this would seem like a nice thing. Comments? -- cary
try also, ZPoPyDA ZPoPyDA is a *stable* Postgresql Database Adapter for Zope based on our driver PoPy. It aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA. This database adapter is released under the GPL Licence. You can get the tarball at http://www.mixadlive.com/software bye Paolo Comitini Mixad Live s.r.l. On 31 Mag, Cary O'Brien wrote:
Ok, pygresql is now DB-SIG compliant and thread safe.
What has to be done to create a one-database-connection-per-thread PyGreSQL database adapter? Given the recent influx of resources into PostgreSQL this would seem like a nice thing. Comments?
-- cary
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
pcm@mixadlive.com wrote:
try also,
ZPoPyDA
ZPoPyDA is a *stable* Postgresql Database Adapter for Zope based on our driver PoPy. It aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA.
This database adapter is released under the GPL Licence.
AFAIK this is the only DA with GPL license. Both Zope and python have much freer licenses making GPL probably a poor choice if you "aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA". What is the reason behind GPL'ing it ? If you you hope to make money selling commercial licences I doubt it will work. Many peaople are afraid of contaminating their work with smallish GPL products and would rather use inferior but free products.
You can get the tarball at http://www.mixadlive.com/software
Thanks ----------------- Hannu
Hannu Krosing wrote:
pcm@mixadlive.com wrote:
try also,
ZPoPyDA
ZPoPyDA is a *stable* Postgresql Database Adapter for Zope based on our driver PoPy. It aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA.
This database adapter is released under the GPL Licence.
AFAIK this is the only DA with GPL license.
and only ODBC driver has LGPL license (the "Lesser" or "Library" GPL which leaves you much more freedom than the stock GPL).
Both Zope and python have much freer licenses making GPL probably a poor choice if you "aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA".
IMHO, if you want it to fly you should either use PostgreSQL or Python license for PoPy and either Python or Zope license for ZPoPyDA. -------------- Hannu
Hi! On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
AFAIK this is the only DA with GPL license. Both Zope and python have much freer licenses making GPL probably a poor choice if you "aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA".
What is the reason behind GPL'ing it ?
Aha, well, the GPL-vs-BSD-vs-MPL-vs...! :))) As PostgreSQL mailing list member you (like me) saw these debates many times. I don't think we need to continue the flame here :) There are people who loke BSD-style licensing, and there are GPL devotee. In this far-from-ideal world it is hard to say what is more free. I, personnaly, love GPL and publish whatever I can under GPL. Oleg. (All opinions are mine and not of my employer) ---- Oleg Broytmann Foundation for Effective Policies phd@phd.russ.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
AFAIK this is the only DA with GPL license. Both Zope and python have much freer licenses making GPL probably a poor choice if you "aims to replace the current ZPygresql DA".
What is the reason behind GPL'ing it ?
Aha, well, the GPL-vs-BSD-vs-MPL-vs...! :)))
As PostgreSQL mailing list member you (like me) saw these debates many times. I don't think we need to continue the flame here :)
True. The problem is that in some perverted fashion it seems to me that if I use a GPL library with something the whole thing should go GPL, i.e. my use of ZPoPyDA could make me obliged to distribute Zope under GPL, which I of course can't do and thus i start feeling scizophrenic ;)
There are people who loke BSD-style licensing, and there are GPL devotee. In this far-from-ideal world it is hard to say what is more free. I, personnaly, love GPL and publish whatever I can under GPL.
I personally don't have anything against (L)GPL either, its just my gut feeling that having _multiple_ potentially clashing licenses inside what should be ideally one package is confusing as the interactions of licenses can't be understood by noone ;) -------------- Hannu
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
True. The problem is that in some perverted fashion it seems to me that if I use a GPL library with something the whole thing should go GPL, i.e. my
Yes - that's why I love GPL :)
use of ZPoPyDA could make me obliged to distribute Zope under GPL, which I of course can't do and thus i start feeling scizophrenic ;)
No - just using the GPL'd adapter do not require you to distribute Zope under GPL. The adapter is just a "plugin"; there was an explanation from RMS that GPL'd plugins does not require to GPL the main program and vice versa; there probably will be newer version of GPL (don't know how soon) which will explain the plugin thingie in details. In short - only linking with GPL code "infects" your code with GPL. Oleg. (All opinions are mine and not of my employer) ---- Oleg Broytmann Foundation for Effective Policies phd@phd.russ.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
True. The problem is that in some perverted fashion it seems to me that if I use a GPL library with something the whole thing should go GPL, i.e. my
This was my impression of GPL too. I thought that's why the LGPL (?) was created.
No - just using the GPL'd adapter do not require you to distribute Zope under GPL. The adapter is just a "plugin"; there was an explanation from RMS that GPL'd plugins does not require to GPL the main program and vice versa; there probably will be newer version of GPL (don't know how soon) which will explain the plugin thingie in details.
In short - only linking with GPL code "infects" your code with GPL.
This is unclear, and sounds like hair splitting to me. What's the difference between linking and using a plugin? What happens when the plugin is a dynamically linked shared library? I haven't seen PoPy, but if it's a C library interface under Python (like Pygresql) the chances are good. Confusion reigns. Regards, Daryl Tester
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Daryl Tester wrote:
No - just using the GPL'd adapter do not require you to distribute Zope under GPL. The adapter is just a "plugin"; there was an explanation from RMS that GPL'd plugins does not require to GPL the main program and vice versa; there probably will be newer version of GPL (don't know how soon) which will explain the plugin thingie in details.
In short - only linking with GPL code "infects" your code with GPL.
This is unclear, and sounds like hair splitting to me. What's the difference between linking and using a plugin? What happens when the plugin is a dynamically linked shared library? I haven't seen PoPy, but if it's a C library interface under Python (like Pygresql) the chances are good.
These are perfect questions, and I knew RMS spent time thinking on it. I am not authorized to answer; when (and if) new version of GPL will be published I hope things will be clearer. Oleg. (All opinions are mine and not of my employer) ---- Oleg Broytmann Foundation for Effective Policies phd@phd.russ.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
participants (5)
-
Cary O'Brien -
Daryl Tester -
Hannu Krosing -
Oleg Broytmann -
pcm＠mixadlive.com