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

Chris McDonough chrism@digicool.com
Thu, 04 May 2000 00:29:08 -0400


Jerry wrote:
> 
> 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.
[snip]
> 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?

It hasn't much to do with mindshare... MySQL and Oracle (and actually
InterBase as well) are frontrunning candidates for development of
RelationalStorage because they already have Python DB-API2 compliant
adapters written for them.  Postgres can certainly handle it (AFAICT
it's ideal), but I don't much feel like writing to a non-DBAPI compliant
in the first cut as it limits the platform to *only* posgres initially,
and I don't want to wrap the existing postgres da in a DB-API2 wrapper
or anything (it's just no fun).   Hopefully, once there is some code to
poke at, people will modify it to make it work against their database of
choice.

-- 
Chris McDonough
Digital Creations
Publishers of Zope - http://www.zope.org