Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> said:
>Would this be a reasonably faithful port or would you attempt to make 
>changes?
>
It wouldn't be a port at all, just something with the same design. 

>It would be interesting to benchmark the two and see how they compare.
>
ZODB is likely to fare better, because the serialization is done in C code and
that's likely to be the bottleneck. 

>    I don't know if the ZODB works on Mac. I know Zope doesn't.
>
That's a completely different issue - Zope is a highly complex product, with
lots of C code and probably lots of assumptions on pathnames etcetera (which
work reasonable well between Unix and Windows, but break on the Mac). But I'm
sure you could port it with not too much effort (I've ported worse things to
the Mac), but the Mac's reputation as a server and the ubiquity of Intel boxen
(plus the availability of MacOS X) gives a very low incentive to do the work.

>Let us know when there is something to play with.
>
First I need to attach Scott's FTS engine to the Squeak mailing list archive
:-)


-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B