[Zope-dev] Re: Alternative Storages: (was RelationalStorage (was LocalFS))

[Jerry]

Just one point. The concept of abstraction to enable
any SQL compatible RDBMS makes perfect sense, to a 
rigorously OO way of thinking. Ironically, strict 
adherance can sometimes lead down a path where a truly 
marvelous option is dismissed, simply because it is 
unique.

The objects to be stored are, after all, objects, not
data fields. The shortcomings of FileStorage are
limitations related to heavy writes, and non-atomic
undo. Other aspects have proven very appropriate for
the task of enabling persistence in objects.

The inherent features of PostgreSQL to allow user defined, 
inheritable datatypes, suggests remarkable synergies with
the intention of the proposed DB Storage, if not with 
every stated goal. It seems a shame to ignore this
possibility just because Oracle / MySQL have so much
mindshare. When such a tool exists that excels at storing
objects, in a tabular sort of way, should it's special
talents be disregarded just to avoid overdependence on an
incomparably suitable solution?

In the worst case, perhaps a PostgreSQL implementation of
a Rack could be expected to directly handle aspects of 
Object Persistence that must be supplemented with 
Property Sheets, etc. in alternate implementations.

Just in case a Zope newbie is reading this, and hasn't
heard of PostgreSQL before, it is also Open Source.

	http://www.postgresql.org

Later,
Jerry S.