[ZODB-Dev] Pluggable transactions logic

[JohnD.Heintz]

I think it is reasonable.  The third might have a pretty high cost and sc=
rict=20
requirements.  For example in the near/middle term I would guess that onl=
y=20
BerkeleyStorage with specific garbage settings would be able to even do t=
his.

Another way to solve some of what you are asking for is to push=20
indexing/unindexing directly into the ZODB database.  (It is currently=20
client-side logic).  This has been talked about on the list before but no=
=20
action taken yet.

John

On Monday 06 August 2001 10:39, Chris Withers wrote:
> "John D. Heintz" wrote:
> > Something I've been thinking about is exposing explicit delete calls =
on a
> > Storage.  Is this a feature that you would like to see in the ZODB as
> > well?
>
> I think so...
>
> > It wouldn't solve this problem entirely, we would also need to get
> > support that during the transaction commit the Storage computes the
> > objects available for garbage collection as a result of the activity.=
=20
> > This would be hard and expensive - but very powerful.
>
> Indeed. In fact, that combined with transaction agents would probabyl m=
ake
> all my wildest dreams come true.
>
> I think, in essence, I want to be hook each of the following independen=
tly:
>
> 1. Object creation (storage for the first time)
> 2. Object modification
> 3. Object destruction (when it's no longer available in the storage, or=
 the
> most recent revision is marked as deleted)
>
> IS this a reasonable thing to ask for?
>
> cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
> http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
>
> ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev

--=20
=2E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John D. Heintz | Senior Engineer

1016 La Posada Dr. | Suite 240 | Austin TX 78752
T 512.633.1198 | jheintz@isogen.com

w w w . d a t a c h a n n e l . c o m