[Persistence-sig] Why only ZODB ? what about 4ODS ?

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 12:49 PM 9/12/02 +0000, Cristi Cristi wrote:


>Why are you talking mostly about zodb?

Mainly because it's one of the systems that's been around longer, and lots 
of people have experience with it.


>Have you looked around
>to see if there are other packages that might be of interest?

Yes.


>For example I suggest 4ODS, which is part of the 4Suite python
>libraries (which are already distributed in newer linux
>distributions). I looked at it and it seems to be pretty well
>writen. http://4suite.org/index.xhtml
>http://uche.ogbuji.net:8080/uche.ogbuji.net/tech/4Suite/4ODS-userguide.html
>(a little out of date I think) Please share your opinions.

I think that the intended relationship between the SIG and a project like 
4ODS, is that the SIG wants to produce transaction, caching, and 
persistence API definitions that can be used by 4ODS as a basis for its 
larger framework, just as much as for ZODB or PEAK.

That is, this isn't about picking a persistence system or mechanism and 
blessing it as the official Python system, but rather about having a common 
low-level API, similar in principle to the Python DBAPI standard.

That is, in theory I should be able to write objects that could be 
persisted by ZODB, PEAK, or 4ODS, just by swapping out which package I 
install or activate.  (In practice, as with the DBAPI, there are likely to 
be other compatibility issues that would need addressing, but at least one 
is not starting over with a *completely* different API.)

Anyway, to accomplish this it would ideally require the participation of 
the 4ODS developers.  Have you suggested to them that they get involved in 
this forum?