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

[Casey Duncan]

Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

It would certainly be an interseting exercise to put Matisse or
Objectivity behind Zope as ZODB storage, however I think there will
always be kludgeyness because features of Zope wont directly map (like
versions).

I think the Berkeley storage option will eventually prove to be the
ticket. Probably sooner than later.

How about XML storage! 8^) You think startup times are slow now...

-- 
| Casey Duncan
| Kaivo, Inc.
| cduncan@kaivo.com
`------------------>