On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:44 PM, David Binger wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2005, at 3:00 PM, mario ruggier wrote:
>
>> dismiss it as a baby zodb
>
> How can we address this?

By reminding everybody how nice babies can be ;-?

> Although Durus has every feature I think it needs,
> the feature list is shorter than zodb, and the
> performance will probably always be similar, unless
> somebody figures out a faster way to do file io.
> Although everybody says simplicity is good,
> it isn't simplicity that sells.

Yes, bells and whistles attract more attention.
Still, I think Durus deserves more noise than it is getting.
Noise abut its simplicity...

> Maybe projects like schevo and moellus are just
> the ticket.  And if Oleg gives OODBs a try, this
> thing may really take off. ;)

Any project that uses Durus should be listed somewhere...

In addition to this, I think what might turn on a little media
spotlight on Durus is some sort of scenario comparison... that
addresses in some ways each issue that keeps people away from OODBs and
stick with SQL. A task / data model that lends itself well for OO...
Compare at least 3 cases: pure OO, using an ORB, pure SQL. This is of
course a rather big job, but the results could become very
publicized... besides being very interesting for all of us. It would
also lead to an interesting presentation at pycon. A dbshowdown, à la
pyweboff... I do not know if anyone here has an idea of what an
appropriate task (and reasonably implementable) might be to base such a
comparison on. Implementations for each case could probably be
delegated out...

This would serve well not only Durus, but also products built on it...

mario