Oh dear. I've been investing lots of time recently in Rails. Now I find out TG is just as good and its in the language I know. On 1/26/06, Doug Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Bengtsson wrote: > > I've read your blog and your replies here with great interest. > > The points you make about understanding and progress are very interesting. > > No wonder [some] people think Zope sucks because Acquisition is so > > difficult to grok; but now after having understood its power I feel > > this is one of Zope's best feature. The reason I didn't give up was > > because I had a friend whom I trusted that I persist. If it wasn't for > > him I would probably have avoided zope quite early. > > Hi Peter - I knew someone would defend Zope, should have guessed it > would be you :) > > I don't think difficulty of grokking is the problem with Acquisition > really. I think it's a good attempt at solving a real problem that > ultimately creates more problems than it solves. The problem > acquisition tries to solve is a real issue - how do you provide > "context" in a web application? > > Zope satisfies these requirements using Acquisition. My problem with it > is that it is too promiscuous - your namespace ends up massively > polluted, leading to name collision between multiple products. > > I spend a lot of my time working with Zope and this leads to real issues > - only yesterday I had two products that had coincidentally named a > method the same (one as a method one as a PythonScript) leading to > bizarre failures when one acquired the other's version of the method. > > Ultimately I think Acquisition is a Glorious Failure - it was a brave > attempt to solve a difficult problem, but it just doesn't scale. Zope > Corp have realised this, and Zope 3 is fundamentally different, using > Adaptation instead of Acquisition to provide a mechanism for object > location. > > > I'm wondering Doug, what's your take on zope3 vs. TG? > > Zope 3 looks very good - they've fundamentally addressed the core > architectural problems in Zope 2. I seriously dislike the XML > configuration files, which might seem like a minor point but it really > gets on my nerves. > > Zope 3 has a head start on the other frameworks like TG, in that there > is a large body of existing code (such as CMF) which can be ported to it > from Zope 2. Lots of that code is very crufty and horrible though, so > how much of an advantage that is depends a lot on the extent of any > rewriting that goes on I guess. > > TG is going to be using RuleDispatch instead of Adaptation, which is > going to be really interesting. I have no idea how well that's going to > pan out in actual use. > > There have been a lot of complaints about the diversity of web solutions > for Python, as opposed to Ruby where there is just the one, as if > somehow it was a bad thing. It may be confusing for newcomers, but I > can't honestly believe that the genetic diversity of solutions, all able > to take the best of each other's ideas, can be anything other than a > very good thing. > > Cheers, > > Doug. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Isotoma, Open Source Software Consulting > Tel: 020 7620 1446 / Mobile: 07879 423002 / Fax: 020 79006980 > Skype: dougwinter / http://www.isotoma.com > Lincoln House, 75 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7HS > _______________________________________________ > python-uk mailing list > python-uk@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk >
-- Wisdom is the reward you get for a lifetime of listening when you'd have preferred to talk. _______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
