On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 17:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
> > On 5/4/09 1:21 AM, Iain Duncan wrote:
> >> Hi folks, I'm new here and was wondering if there is a good Repoze.bfg
> >> to Grok comparison page anywhere. If not, I'd like to recommend that it
> >> would be a great addition to the docs. I know there is a brief
> >> comparison up there, but to someone like me who is experienced in
> >> Pylons/TG/Django style stuff but new to Zope, I'm pretty confused about
> >> whether I should learn zope by trying out Zope 3, Grok, or Repoze.bfg
> >> and what the pros and cons of each approach are.
> > I'm afraid there isn't much in the way of documents comparing Grok to BFG
> > or
> > Zope 3 to BFG as a web framework. The Repoze/Zope/Grok communities overlap
> > a
> > good bit so everyone is quite nice to each other about their frameworks. ;-)
> > In general, though, these days I think it's safe to say if you want Zope3,
> > you
> > want Grok. "Want Zope3" can be defined as "want ZODB, want Zope-style
> > form-generation, want ZPT". If you want something smaller that feels
> > similar
> > but doesn't make as many choices for you, BFG is probably the way to go.
Hmm, maybe I'm weird, but what I actually am intrigued by is the other
stuff. I like SQLA, Genshi, and to a lesser extent ToscaWidgets. But I'm
very interested in the registry based architecture of Zope from what
I've read so har in Philipp's book. I do wish the book had more of an
architectural overview chapter in the beginning though.
> Grok's big. It has a lot of features (good), and a lot of code (a
> liability). It makes choices about the defaults more than BFG does. Due
> to its Zope 3 heritage it doesn't tend to lock you into defaults very
> much, but they're there and that might be trouble enough for some.
Is one or the other more similar to Pylons? I *think* I'm stumbling
towards something like Zope Component Architecture on Pylons call style.
Thanks for the feedback.
Repoze-dev mailing list