[Pythoncard-users] Re: [ZODB-Dev] Excellent overview of ODBMS and my take on ZODB

"Patrick K. O'Brien" wrote:
> 
> Persistent base class, and you cannot use __getattr__ or __setattr__
> methods. 

Not true.

> which is why I created a Field class in my Bulldozer project. ZODB is also
> slightly behind in supporting the new classes in Python 2.2 and the new
> capabilities that those bring.

I think those are being used in the Zope 3 development effort.

> ZODB does assign Object Identifiers automatically. And you can get to them
> if you know the attribute/method call. 

But that's 'bad'. I think you may want the ObjectHub in Zope 3.

> Especially if you expect to be able to use the OID as a link to data in some
> other system, such as a relational database. At this point you are better
> off generating your own "key" value.

Yeah, definitely ObjectHub.

> Distributed storage is not supported by ZODB at this point. And I don't get
> the impression that this is on anyone's to-do list, though rumor has it that
> Jim Fulton has been heard whispering about such things
> (http://lists.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2001-May/000801.html). The storage
> enhancement requests/proposals that I could find are:
> 
> 1. Standby (http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/StandbyStorage)
> 2. MixedMode (http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/MixedModeStorage)
> 3. Replicated
> (http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ZEOReplicatedStorage/FrontPage).

I think Jim sees replication as an 'application level' problem. I'm inclined to
agree, but it's a shame it can't all happen magically ;-)

> ZODB does not have an Object Query capability. On the Zope side there is the
> Catalog capability, which has some query-like features. But, imho, ZODB
> really needs its own indexing and cataloging features minus the Zope
> overhead.

Don't think it's gonna happen.

cheers,

Chris