I'd like to add some misinformation...errmm, comments. :^) On the
version control side, you're quite right, we're still behind on it.
There _are_ some ways to get there, if you try hard enough. But that's
There are two things long term that need to be done: filesystem
synchronization and version control. The former is a project to make it
possible to represent and perhaps round-trip Zope data in a way friendly
filesystem tools and patterns. This obviously includes SCM systems like
We've had, at our Friday jam sessions, a couple of proposals on this.
So far it's simply provoked rigorous discussion but not a lot of
consensus, as balancing the competing goals is harder than it sounds.
I was talking with Jim yesterday over lunch about this, and whether the
new component model would put filesystem synchronization in its scope.
The short answer is, not in the first cut. It will certainly make
filesystem synchronization a lot easier, but we need to get it out the
door and tackle filesystem syncing later.
Regarding version control...this is something that has been burned into
our skulls in recent RFPs that we've responded to. It's the number one
thing we at ZC need to address to be more competitive in CMS bids.
So far the goals and use cases of DeltaV seem to best describe what
we're currently thinking:
Note that this is for Zope itself to have a model for version control.
Filesystem sync is the most obvious way to interface to a separate SCM
system. However, _if_ Zope adopted a repository model, it's conceivable
that Zope could have an implementation of the repository that used an
external system. _Please_ understand that this is all hand-waving right
now. But I'm on the hook to incept versioning, so it's informed
Jay, Dylan wrote:
From: Kenichi Sato
Sent: Monday, 24 September 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Barriers to Zope popularity: Part 2: source control
Dear Mr. Jay, Dylan,
I am Ken Sato, a manager of software development projects. I'm now
taking a look at Zope as a tool to publish project related
Zope looks nice but I found it has two potential problems.
1. WYSIWYG editing
2. Source control (by ClearCase)
Then, I found that you pointed out exactly same things in the
zope-dev mailing list.
Because the post was two years ago, I wonder if you have already
solved the above problems. It would be very helpful for me if you
could give me some information on this issue, please.
Hope you don't mind me CC'ing this to zope-dev. I still see both these
issues as important and still see the lack of progress towards Zope working
well in traditional development environments being a real outage. Plus
others may have different opinions about the current state of affairs
1. I have not used Zope Page Templates but these are supposed to solve the
wysiwyg problem. They are an alternative to DMTLDocuments. They allow for
much better seperation of code and presentation. Get you graphics people to
use webdav to edit the html with whatever editor they want and the coding
people argment the html rather than rip it appart.
Personally I like DTML and back then I did suggest a way DTML could used in
a similar way to Page Templates (basically have a view mode of a DTML
document that incorparates the rendered content as well as the DTML code
such that when the page is edited and saved back, it will save all the
changed parts back to the where they came from, i.e. the different
DTMLMethods that made up the page). but like most of my ideas I din't have
the ability or time to implement it.
2. Hasn't really been solved. There are sort of attempts that work now with
CVS (I havn't tried it)
but there are proposals that will better solve this problem, but no
implementation on the way that I can see.
The problem is really one of synchronization. You want two different
representations that are both kept upto date. One for zope to use, one for
all the reasons we have things under source control. You may or may not want
control of when the synchronization occurs.
Here are some related proposals
I also see a lot of parallels with the work going on with ZODB replication.
If you had replication between a normal ZODB and some filesystem source
control ZODB then you would have the source control