On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Malthe Borch <mbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think of BFG as a microkernel; you can plug into it using WSGI and a
> few other interfaces. These are simple and so writing libraries for
> them is easy. Contrast this with Zope where libraries have to be
> written against an entire framework with a high level of abstraction.
> Contracts are easier with BFG and it makes development quick and, dare
> I say it, fun.

I'd add that BFG is definitely zope exploded...and it just happen to
use a few bits of it to allow easy object publication (ZODB or SQL).
Adding new template engines to BFG require you to know python while in
GROK, it'd require you to grok grok first (which in would then
introduce the developer to ZCA) which is definitely a Zope3 thing.
BFG is also security ready. At any time the developer can easily turn
the key and make a entire app secure and then start defining
fine-grained permissions. In GROK, it's going to make you understand
Zope3 PAU first and then you have some work to do....and there is a
chance that in the end, you run away crying.

Anyway, lots of key points in BFG:

1) Teeny Tiny;
2) Amazingly fast to serve and restart... "If the server restarts
faster, you don't need a /custom folder";
3) Few concepts to understand and easy to remember;
4) Easy security;
5) Easy templating;
6) Using ZODB or SQL is optional and covered;
7) Benefits from WSGI which allows easy extensibility and deployment;
8) You can do zope development (ZCA) inside of it but that's optional
and definitely not required.

In GROK, things tends to be a little harder because of it's
inheritance from Zope3...but doesn't require you to know Zope3 in the
beginning...which I believe is the goal of the project.

Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to