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

[Jason Spisak]

Jimmie Houchin:

> At 3:20 PM +0000 5/4/00, Jason Spisak wrote:
> >Jimmie Houchin:
> [snip]
> >What is the primary reasoning behind the per class?  Is that how the ZODB
> >works now? I think it's transaction based.  I think I understand now.  It's
> >like a row in an RDBMS.  Yes, we are talking about two different animals.
> >I think the important thing is the transparency of as Phillip said
> >"persistance providers".  A place to get you persistance, whether stored by
> >class/object/transaction, they should all give Zope what it needs...an
> >object with a current transaction/version state.
> 
> Actually it would be similar to a table in a RDBMS with the table being in
> it's own file. As per a reply from Philip, it really isn't necessary for
> this to be in it's own file. This doesn't really have anything to do with
> transactions per se. Transactions are somewhat independent of this idea and
> of storages. My idea had ZODB operating exactly as it currently does except
> with multiple files based on classes because certain objects will have
> different usage characteristics.
> 
> That said. I like better what Philip is proposing with Racks as it fully
> satisfies my thoughts and provides an overall framework and philosophy for
> development which much more versatile and extensable.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Jimmie Houchin
> 
> 

I think the RIPP model will work fine as well.  It's a solution to the
propertysheet/instance data source anonimity problem, but not the ZODB
storage issue.  Once you put things in Racks it really ceases to matter
that the ZODB contains your implementation/classes, etc...  because it's
the instance data that is a hog.  I'm going to use RIPP as well.


All my best,

Jason Spisak
CIO
HireTechs.com
6151 West Century Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90045
P. 310.665.3444
F. 310.665.3544

Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission.  Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for
repeats.