Comment Referential integrity (Score 1) 342
You bring up an excellent point: ZODB doesn't do any referential or data-type integrity checking; it's pretty much just a dumb (though rather concurrent and durable) graph store. Thus, ZODB-using apps have to take care of data integrity themselves or else interpose another layer (which you'd want to do in a "shared" situation like you mention).
I guess that's the tradeoff ZODB makes: really fast and agile development (no schemas to maintain, etc.) in exchange for no particular constraint enforcement. In practice, the latter is mitigated (and lots of painful debugging saved) through use of constraint-enforcement frameworks like Archetypes, but that still makes me queasy in a multi-app situation, as you'd have to make sure everybody uses the framework.
Personally, I'm both a ZODB and a Postgres wonk. What I'd love to see is the best of both worlds: a language-agnostic graph DB with internal constraint enforcement and, as my pony, a declarative ad hoc querying language.