oodb philosophics ;) was: Re: [Zope-dev] Experiments with ORMapping

[Tino Wildenhain]

Hi shane,

I think the motivation people want an RDBMS storage beneth zodb is
because they understand RDBMSes these days are performant, relieable
and can quiete easy maintained.

I've seen Java implementations using this approach to achive persistens
using as example "Powertier[tm]" to explicit map oop data to an RDBMS.
I didnt like it because you have to map your objects each time you create
a class, keep in mind not to infere with others etc...

Would it not be better to improve the abilities of the Filestorage
to handle updates better? May be most of the storage system in C?
With logfiles like modern RDBMSes use to incorporate fast changes?
However, to avoid pickling/unpickling and may be to update on
attribute-change, we need the approach you mentioned.

What about using a real oodb for zope? Dont remember any particular
product name, but I heard something.

Regards
Tino Wildenhain


--On Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2001 12:39 -0400 Shane Hathaway 
<shane@digicool.com> wrote:

> Tino Wildenhain wrote:
>> > But storage of binary pickles was never the intention anyway.  I
>> > created a little interface that would allow you to store different
>> > classes in different PostgreSQL tables.  Before I got to implementing
>> > anything,
>>
>> Is this much like the ZPatterns approach?
>
> Which part of ZPatterns are you referring to?  The idea is to
> (generally) put all instances of a class in a certain table.  But the
> implementation details having nothing in common with ZPatterns.
>
>> Or do we want to make some automatism to get tables created and destroyed
>> according to ZClasses needs?
>
> I was thinking there would be a default table where everything gets
> stored by default.  A programmer then tells the ORMapping about specific
> classes and how to store them.
>
>> > So, if we have context, the relational mapping tree can work.  It would
>> > turn Zope into a purely relational application server, which a lot of
>> > folks apparently want.  ;-)
>>
>> Oh, do they? ;)
>> Me dont :-)
>
> You know, it might be possible to get a team together to implement
> this.  How many out there would be interested in pursuing it further?
> IMHO it's not as much work as it sounds at first.  Zope being so
> object-oriented, you really can replace one of its most fundamental
> assumptions (an OODBMS) with something else (an RDBMS) without a huge
> effort.
>
> Shane