[ZODB-Dev] RFC: ZODB 4.0 (without persistent)

[Laurence Rowe]

On 14 October 2012 22:49, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> Well, I don't have time to chase BTrees.  This could always be done in
>>> ZODB 5. :)
>>
>> I could help chop BTrees out, if that would be useful:  most of the
>> effort will be purely subtractive in the ZODB package (I don't think
>> anything depends on BTrees).
>
> FileStorage uses BTrees for it's in-memory index.
>
> MappingStorage used BTrees.
>
> There are ZODB tests that use BTrees,
> but I suppose they could be fixed.
>
> I just don't think the win is that great
> in separating BTrees at this time.

I don't think Hanno is suggesting removing BTrees as a dependency from
ZODB but rather breaking out the BTrees package into a separate PyPI
distribution to make it more visible to potential users outside of the
ZODB community, e.g.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/exj74/btree_c_extension_module_for_python_alpha/

To do that, refactoring tests shouldn't be required. I guess it could
be argued that the fsBTree should be part of the ZODB rather than
BTrees distribution, but leaving it where it is would be much easier.

Laurence