Malthe Borch wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I've been working on a new web framework named (provisionally) repoze.bfg.
> This looks very interesting; I'd be curious to see if this could be
> useful for Vudo. I'd like it very much if Vudo could sit on top of a
> more general framework (not just the Zope 3 libraries).
> Early on, the idea was that this could be Grok, but it quickly turned
> out that Grok makes too many assumptions for our use.
> I recently pasted a basic Pylons application and it gives you something
> that I think would be attractive in a Zope/Vudo/Bfg-based setup: A
> canonical directory structure, e.g.
> etc. (can't remember the details)
Sure. I think one of us (maybe Paul?) signed up to write a PasteScript
to lay out a directory structure something like this.
We don't currently provide an easy way to serve out a static directory full of
content. We'd need to add that (or decide not to add it in favor of letting a
separate "resource" server serve the static stuff).
> Perhaps this could benefit the following scenario:
> -- Set me up with a new Zope/Vudo/Bfg-application and give me some
> starting points.
> If Bfg can provide the lower layer, then I think Vudo will be great for
> providing the higher layers, e.g.
> -- skinning
> -- content types and widgets
> -- authoring
> -- admin
Sounds good to me.
The plans are to keep BFG mostly policy-agnostic save for
the very basics (graph traversal, a default templating language, and a calling
and response convention for views).
I had planned to create another package named repoze.lemonade which:
- Wired in ZODB
- Defined base classes for folderish and leafish types.
- Had an object add/remove/move event model.
- Did indexing of content.
It sounds like Vudo could either build on top of that or just *be* that. It
might be better to continue layering stuff, I suppose, without going "straight
to the content management layer". Would it be appropriate for Vudo to build on
something like that?
What would Vudo need out of a framework?
Repoze-dev mailing list