Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

pcplantdb - Re: [pcplantdb] platform revisited

pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: pcplantdb

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>
  • To: pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [pcplantdb] platform revisited
  • Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:12:22 -0700

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page