[Python-Dev] bsddb alternative (was Re: [issue3769] Deprecate bsddb for removal in 3.0)

[Jesus Cea]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

C. Titus Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -> Brett Cannon wrote:
> -> >> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0]
> -> >> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable object store
> -> >> in Python?  We've been using bsddb, but is there an alternative?  And
> -> >> what if bsddb is removed?
> -> > 
> -> > Beyond shelve there are no official plans to add a specific object store.
> -> 
> -> If you are storing million of objects, you'd better use a transactional
> -> storage, able to survive diskfulls or code/computer crashes.
> 
> We're using a write-once-read-many pattern of access, and it is simply a
> cache of a separate file (that remains around), so no, we don't better
> use a transactional storage :).

If you can recreate the database in case of problems, and it is mostly
reads, then I would suggest you gdbm. I personally hate SQL and "SQL
fits all" mentality, and the mindset/impedance mismatch between python
and objects, and SQL world, but sure sqlite module could fill the bill
also... if you don't mind mixing two languages and two logics in your
code and your brain :).

> -> I will maintain "bsddb" as a separate (downloadable via PYPI) package
> -> whatever the fate of bsddb in Python stardard library be. So bsddb is a
> -> pretty safe bet, even if you need to install it separately.
> 
> Since I/we want to distribute pygr to end-users, this is really not a
> pleasant prospect.  Also often the installation of Python itself goes
> much more smoothly than the installation of separately compiled binary
> packages, for all the obvious reasons (compiler/OS versions, lib
> versions, etc. etc.)

I agree. I can check the library with Solaris 10 and several flavors of
Linux, but I'm particularly worried about Windows support. I'm unable to
provide precompiled libs, and 99.999% of windows users don't know what a
"compiler thing" is, let alone being able to compile anything by themselves.

> I agree.  I like bsddb for just this reason and I'd like to continue
> being able to use it!  I think that there are many reasons why having
> such a thing in the stdlib is really useful and I also think it's worth
> exploring the ramifications of taking it out...

+Inf

- --
Jesus Cea Avion                         _/_/      _/_/_/        _/_/_/
jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/     _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org         _/_/    _/_/          _/_/_/_/_/
.                              _/_/  _/_/    _/_/          _/_/  _/_/
"Things are not so easy"      _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump"   _/_/_/        _/_/_/      _/_/  _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBSMAUeZlgi5GaxT1NAQKM5gQAhEO8OmVvVXr/jp1Hqj7DnxuPb0kabeGF
TjDyiiJutbDKNLZiqegV7nzNpfJBMMZXNXTG70Lbrh05GWdzYcLahHluPzmf3hu6
wPCjv63NijH4OCmhtGmN4vi/C6p5VX1NqktN0evX7FYNJrnoYVKBRSnFdF8aPSbI
wUKKSsihJTw=
=Zv+S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----