-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim Peters wrote: > [Yair Benita] > >>... >>Reading this answer I understand that anything I store should be >>persistent, even if its a list I don't plan to edit. > > > I wouldn't say that. For example, for _most_ applications it would be > foolish to create a subclass of Persistent to store an integer, as > opposed to just storing an integer directly. I can conceive of > (unlikely!) applications where there may be advantages to storing > integers as perisistent objects, though.
As, for instance, where the integer changes much more frequently than the other attributes, which are large enough that re-storing them just because the integer attribute changed is painful. Making the attribute a persistent sub-object also eliminates the chance of a ConflictError based on changes to the other attributes. This is the use case which drives BTrees.Length, right? Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtw/D+gerLs4ltQ4RAnEqAJ9PKCCRriJR3Qt4AWrGCUGk1V6RFQCgxTEl 9waizE6T/pk8Tz/Tkul/4TA= =Uief -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
