First...kd Lang and Cowboy Junkies, nice choices. I've never listened much to Leonard Cohen,
despite you telling me to through the years.
I fully sympathize with the point you are making. At the same time, though, the ZODB drawback
applies to RDBMS-based systems as well. I don't think many people would consider a CMS that had
no database, which used the filesystem as the database.
With RDBMS-based systems, do developers practice the approach you suggest? Or, do you think these
systems have native facilities? Perhaps instead, people have learned to accept the limitation.
RDBMS development environments
Posted byevangineerat
2004-01-19 04:56 PM
The last place I worked had a very similar environment. Our system used Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise as the backend. On the development Sybase server, there were multiple database environments which were assigned to individual developers/teams for their use. This provided the sandbox for them to do whatever they needed to do safely without disrupting anybody else. There was very extensive use of scripts to create and alter the database in terms of table structure and stored procedures. Needless to say these scripts were kept in a version control system (StarTeam).
So Chris's article rang a lot of bells for me and I have proposed that the same approach be used for an upcoming Zope project.
despite you telling me to through the years.
I fully sympathize with the point you are making. At the same time, though, the ZODB drawback
applies to RDBMS-based systems as well. I don't think many people would consider a CMS that had
no database, which used the filesystem as the database.
With RDBMS-based systems, do developers practice the approach you suggest? Or, do you think these
systems have native facilities? Perhaps instead, people have learned to accept the limitation.
So Chris's article rang a lot of bells for me and I have proposed that the same approach be used for an upcoming Zope project.