<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Antonio Cuni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anto.cuni@gmail.com">anto.cuni@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
<br>
On 16/11/10 03:17, Dan Stromberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Yes, the dbm module in pypy is basically like the bsddb module in cpython.<br>
<br>
cpython includes modules for bsddb, gdbm, and more.<br>
<br>
I tend to prefer gdbm over bsddb, because I've seen bsddb databases get<br>
corrupt too many times - EG, when a filesystem overflows. bsddb might be a<br>
little faster though; I've never compared their performance.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><br>
So, if I understand correctly you are saying that we should rename our dbm.py to bsdb.py, and write a new dbm.py which can use either bsdb or gdbm?<br></blockquote><div>I think it's anydbm that can use whatever among dbm, bsddb, gdbm and dumbdbm, as it sees fit. TTBoMK, it's not until python 3.x that dbm becomes a sort of unifying module hierarchy.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Sounds fine, do you feel like implementing it? :-)<br>
<br>
Moreover, I also agree with amaury that your code is very similar to the one in the current dbm.py, so we should maybe try to refactor things to share common parts between the twos.<br></blockquote><div>I'd be happy to.<br>
<br>Would sharing based on inheritance or a more functional approach be preferred?<br><br></div></div>