Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> The initial motivation mostly that we wanted to use new-style
> classes instead of ExtensionClasses.  Durus does not have as many
> features as ZODB (multi-threaded access, multiple storage backends,
> asynchronous IO, versions, undo, conflict resolution).  That all
> adds up to making the code much simpler.
>
> Recent releases of ZODB now use new-style classes too.  So, if you
> need extra features or multi-threading then ZODB is still the way.
> We like Durus because it does what we need and it is simple enough
> that we can understand it in its entirety.
>
> The programming interface is nearly the same as ZODB (Durus is
> heavily influenced by the ZODB design).  Speed is pretty similar
> although Durus may be bit faster.

ZODB+ZEO has never impressed me with its performance and, as far as
complexity, it seems that it is often unwieldy even to its current
maintainers.  For these reasons I'm interested in something more
streamlined like Durus.  However, I do make heavy use of conflict
resolution.  I'm wondering how hard it would be to add this to Durus, or
if perhaps I don't really need the feature.

With Durus, how would you handle an application which has frequent
concurrent writes to the same object?  Example transactions would
include adding an item to a dictionary, or incrementing a value.

-John


--
http://giftfile.org/  ::  giftfile project