pcplantdb

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

Chad Knepp wrote:

> Some ideas:
>
>   1) Use Zope and 'damn the torpedoes'.  Start on arashi and move to
>      ibiblio when they get a Zope server running or buy space at
>      johncompanies or some such if ibiblio doesn't.
>
>   2) Use python with a ZODB backend as well as some Zope tools (like
>      Interface and Catalog) on ibiblio.
>
>   3) Use Eden but abstract the database interface so that we can
>      [hopefully] forward port to Zope in the future.  This would also
>      be RDBMS agnostic allowing use of PostgreSQL, Firebird, MySQL,
>      Oracle, DB2, etc. interchangeably.
>
>   4) Use Eden/MySQL and 'damn the torpedoes'.  Continue development
>      from the existing codebase.
>
>
> My take:
>
>   1) From a technical perspective I think this is the best choice.
>      From a political perspective if Lawrence leaves the project based
>      on this choice it would definitely create a hole.  Lawrence, do
>      you think you would consider shifting on this issue some?
>      Features/Time = Fastest.

See my last post on this subject regarding my concerns over hosting HG at a 
location
other than ibiblio. I'm guessing it will likely be quite a while before 
ibiblio runs Zope.
As for my shifting: If you go for option 1) I will develop my PC 
Knowledgebase as a repository for
my contributions of data and graphics, as a permanent collection. Anyone 
wanting to glean material from this source and submit it to
the HG database is welcome to do so but I won't be doing that myself. 
Essentially I will do my own project apart from HG
without contributing any more time or work to it.
>   2) Second best from a technical perspective.  Shouldn't be too hard
>      to forward port to Zope in the future.  In the meantime it means
>      we have to write all the Zope utilities and features
>      ourself... although we may be able to use some of the other
>      Packages in a stand-alone way like ZODB.  Features/Time = Slowest
>
>   3) You guessed it, third best from a technical standpoint.  This
>      would promote the most thorough OO model possible in a non-Zope
>      environment... although no persistent objects (*sniff*,
>      *whine*).  Features/Time = Third
>
>   4) This one blows rocks technically, but second to 1) would result
>      in the fastest development.  Features/Time = Second
>
> Waddyallthank?


I like Option 4).

--
L.F.London
lfl@intrex.net
http://market-farming.com
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech