I'm going to jump in here though I know I'm _way_ out of my league
replying to Chuck and Ian....I'm just a hacker who likes Webware....
I got interested in ZODB and tinkered with it some, and also saw that it
could play nice with Webware. It seems to me it could be a nice
combination for situations where instances _do_ need to persist. I think
the existence of MiddleKit is an indication that there is a need for
persistent object instances in Webwrae.
If you want your business logic in OOP, ZODB makes it easy to just store
and retrieve the objects with little effort. You can use the ZEO part to
run an object store accessed through network calls that can handle
multiple clients, which seems a big step up from pickling to a file. And
if you change your object model you don't have to rework a mapping to an
I'll admit I haven't tried MiddleKit but it looks less clean and simple. I
think it might be a great job on a problem (mapping objects to RDBMS) that
is inherently awkward. The performance may be better, I have no idea.
I don't really like Zope much but the ZODB seems the best part of it to me.
> On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 09:37, Edmund Lian wrote:
>> I have a question... please don't get offended by it, I don't mean it
>> to be offensive...
> No one should be offended by such a question...
>> While I'm not a great fan of object oriented DBs, I do see a role for
>> them in providing persistence when the demands of an application are
>> lightweight (and don't require all the good stuff that relational DBs
>> offer). I was reading one of Kuchling's write-ups about ZODB and ZEO
>> last night (http://www.amk.ca/zodb/zodb-zeo.html), and was wondering
>> why people use MiddleKit instead of ZODB.
> I would have answered like Chuck answered, so I won't repeat that. But
> I'd add that I think ZODB is about as much like an RDBMS as a file
> system is like an RDBMS. They all store data, and in various ways they
> can all be used for persistence.
> A *lot* of people use Zope with a RDBMS. There's benefits to both of
> them, and certain places where one works better than the other. Most of
> the places where Zope uses ZODB, a Webware developer will be using a
> file -- storing servlets, config files, maybe pickling data that's
> resistent to normalization, etc.
> While you could use ZODB with Webware, I don't think it fits into
> Webware's style. It's this opaque persistent pile of objects, where
> Webware components are usually fairly simple, avoid interrelation where
> they can, and are recreated on demand. Classes persist in Webware --
> and they persist just fine as Python source -- but instances are
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> Webware-discuss mailing list