[Zope-dev] Re: Mountpoints

Tim Peters tim.peters at gmail.com
Fri Oct 21 10:34:31 EDT 2005


[Tim Peters]
>> I think it's worse, but mostly because a key with name "name" is also
>> an option in _related_ sections, but with unrelated meaning.  For
>> example, if you had a nested <zeoclient> section there it could also
>> have specified a "name" key, which would have nothing to do with the
>> <zodb> key named "name".  Nesting options with the same name gets
>> confusing quickly.  OTOH, I would like the explicit key better if it
>> had a different name, say
>>
>>     <zodb>
>>       multidb-name main
>>       <filestorage>
>>         path $DATADIR/Data.fs
>>       </filestorage>
>>     </zodb>
>>     <zodb>
>>       multidb-name a
>>       <filestorage>
>>         path $DATADIR/A.fs
>>       </filestorage>
>>     </zodb>

[Florent Guillaume]
> Yes, please. There is already confusion for cache-size, let's not repeat
> that with another key. Note that "database-name" is more expressive,
> I think

Since the name of the corresponding DB argument is "database_name",
and all the docs that exist for this call it "database_name" too,
that's hard to argue against ;-)

> (the "multi" seems like an implementation detail to me).

Not really:  a DB's database_name was introduced specifically for the
new-in-ZODB-3.5 multidatabase feature, and has no meaning or use apart
from its multidatabase role.  That's better explained in the ZConfig
<description> section for the key than in the name of the key, though.

If Jim doesn't object soon, I'll proceed with adding a database-name
key to ZODB's config.


More information about the Zope-Dev mailing list