On Jun 15, 5:45 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[email protected]> wrote: > Aaron Brady wrote: > > Hi, please forgive the multi-posting on this general topic. > > > Some time ago, I recommended a pursuit of keeping 'persistent > > composite' types on disk, to be read and updated at other times by > > other processes. Databases provide this functionality, with the > > exception that field types in any given table are required to be > > uniform. Python has no such restriction. > > > I tried out an implementation of composite collections, specifically > > lists, sets, and dicts, using 'sqlite3' as a persistence back-end. > > It's significantly slower, but we might argue that attempting to do it > > by hand classifies as a premature optimization; it is easy to optimize > > debugged code. > > <snip/> > > Sounds like you are re-inventing the ZODB. > > Diez
Alright, Diez. Here is some private consulting for free. ''Section 2.6.1: The most common idiom that isn't caught by the ZODB is mutating a list or dictionary'' My approach performs this for free. The docs also don't mention interprocess communication, which is one of the two primary functions that I satisfy in my approach. The syntax is different, non-trivially so, and mine is more Pythonic. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
