Is there a way to protect objects from removal due to ZODB compaction and still maintain undo and revision history? You could consider the the opposite of a 'Temporary Folder'. For certain documents, I would like to keep ALL previous versions in the object store forever- superpersistant, if you will. The best way that I can think to approach this is to keep my superpersistant objects in a second ZODB and mount it in a folder in my primary ZODB. I could then compact my primary without losing old revisions of my files. Is there a better way to approach this?
Jeff Sacksteder wrote:
The best way that I can think to approach this is to keep my superpersistant objects in a second ZODB and mount it in a folder in my primary ZODB. I could then compact my primary without losing old revisions of my files.
That way currently works.
Is there a better way to approach this?
Dunno, mail Toby Dickenson and ask him if it's something that could be added more easily to DirectoryStorage... cheers, Chris
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 12:17 pm, Chris Withers wrote:
Jeff Sacksteder wrote:
The best way that I can think to approach this is to keep my superpersistant objects in a second ZODB and mount it in a folder in my primary ZODB. I could then compact my primary without losing old revisions of my files.
That way currently works.
Is there a better way to approach this?
Dunno, mail Toby Dickenson and ask him if it's something that could be added more easily to DirectoryStorage...
Something like this is on the would-be-nice-to-do list. Packing is up for quite a few changes in DirectoryStorage 1.1. One outstanding question is how to identify the objects that get the special treatment. It cant be a special attribute or method, because the storage only deals in pickles. I am currently thinking that you would designate: 1. python classes - all instances of that class would be treated specially. 2. by oid. ok if you only have a few, but a PITA if you have many. Does that fly for you? Any other ideas gratefully considered. -- Toby Dickenson http://www.geminidataloggers.com/people/tdickenson
Toby Dickenson wrote:
deals in pickles. I am currently thinking that you would designate: 1. python classes - all instances of that class would be treated specially. 2. by oid. ok if you only have a few, but a PITA if you have many.
The option for either would be good ;-) cheers, Chris
participants (3)
-
Chris Withers -
Jeff Sacksteder -
Toby Dickenson