Calvin Hendryx-Parker loves the ZODB. As well he should — it’s an amazing database that continues to be waaay ahead of its time. Object databases are great for content management, it’s a shame to see so many folks stuck in SQL-only modes of thinking.
3 Responses to “#loveszodb”
Leave a Reply
Recent Photos
Greatest Hits
- 2.0 Goes Live (It's a Boy!)
- Unplugging from the Social Networks
- Previewing "2.0"
- Nonprofits, and Open Source: ONE/Northwest and the Plone Community
- 8 Really Cool Things About Plone 3
- Single Stacks Or Network-Centric Web Services?
- Sprint Wisdom
- Elements of Good Online Communications Plan
- Digital Music With A Squeezebox
Recent Comments
- Don Williams on Wireframes first
- Terry Moore on Oil spill widget
- Joel Davis on Coming soon: external link tracking (and more) in Plone with collective.googleanalytics
- Jon Stahl on Coming soon: external link tracking (and more) in Plone with collective.googleanalytics
- irina on Coming soon: external link tracking (and more) in Plone with collective.googleanalytics
Tags
06NTC blogging climate Collaboration Computer infrastructure culture Databases Email environment everett facebook General groundwire innnovation jobs journalism legal links microsoft multimedia NPTech obama online organizing open-source organizing Photos Plone ploneconf2007 ploneconf2008 plone conference Politics research salesforce seattle social media social networks software squeezebox strategy technology video VOIP Web webofchange websitesArchives
- June 2010 (5)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (11)
- February 2010 (8)
- January 2010 (15)
- December 2009 (14)
- November 2009 (23)
- October 2009 (24)
- September 2009 (26)
- August 2009 (21)
- July 2009 (19)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (18)
- April 2009 (9)
- March 2009 (19)
- February 2009 (14)
- January 2009 (19)
- December 2008 (15)
- November 2008 (17)
- October 2008 (16)
- September 2008 (9)
- August 2008 (14)
- July 2008 (8)
- June 2008 (5)
- May 2008 (12)
- April 2008 (18)
- March 2008 (19)
- February 2008 (14)
- January 2008 (27)
- December 2007 (12)
- November 2007 (27)
- October 2007 (23)
- September 2007 (19)
- August 2007 (15)
- July 2007 (13)
- June 2007 (26)
- May 2007 (28)
- April 2007 (13)
- March 2007 (33)
- February 2007 (22)
- January 2007 (19)
- December 2006 (25)
- November 2006 (23)
- October 2006 (8)
- September 2006 (22)
- August 2006 (29)
- July 2006 (32)
- June 2006 (7)
- May 2006 (4)
- April 2006 (10)
- March 2006 (10)
- February 2006 (11)
- January 2006 (12)
- December 2005 (6)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (15)
- September 2005 (15)
- August 2005 (17)
- July 2005 (7)
- June 2005 (11)
- May 2005 (22)
- April 2005 (19)
- March 2005 (22)
- February 2005 (26)
- January 2005 (12)
- December 2004 (13)
- November 2004 (20)
- October 2004 (27)
- September 2004 (35)
- August 2004 (27)
- July 2004 (27)
- June 2004 (25)
- May 2004 (24)
- April 2004 (32)
- March 2004 (30)
- February 2004 (33)
- January 2004 (43)
- December 2003 (23)
- November 2003 (22)
- October 2003 (43)
- September 2003 (19)
- August 2003 (44)
- July 2003 (35)
- June 2003 (7)
- May 2003 (32)
- April 2003 (25)
- March 2003 (19)
- February 2003 (18)
- January 2003 (25)
- December 2002 (17)
- November 2002 (13)
- October 2002 (1)
- August 2002 (5)
Meta
This is so very true, Jon. In my experience, projects that are SQL-based often suffer from bad architecture, probably because developers are having to think too much about how to store their data.
One downside of the ZODB is that there isn’t a strict mode in which you can formally require data to be of a certain kind. There’s some room for hard-to-track errors there, but it can be alleviated by writing good tests.
If you only store numbers and text in the ZODB and use cataloguing with care (e.g. unlike Plone), it’s very hard to beat the ZODB. There are some downsides (non-standard, questionable scaling, doesn’t like writing too much) and you need to be aware of these.
Plone really abuses the ZODB and it’s a shame, because it’s needless. With better datastructures, leaner objects and a minimum of thought, Plone and ZODB could live in perfect harmony.
+1.
And Malthe, we’re well aware that we’re abusing the ZODB, but “we were young and needed the money.”
I know we’re planning to clean up a lot of this in the near future, so your comments/suggestions/patches are always welcome.
If you mean Plone as in Zope2/CMF/Archetypes/ATContentTypes/Plone
I agree with Malthe. But if we are lucky (and contribute) some of this might get better with Plone 4 already.