Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Re: Who would use this crazy thing called Zope 3?
On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:39:52 -, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] There are methods for neatly deprecating things like this, and they have been employed consitently in Zope 3, and quite consistetly in later versions of Zope2. For example, in Zope 2.8 the whole Zope package was renamed Zope2. The Zope.py backwards compatibility handler will be removed in Zope 2.11. I'm not aware of this causing any problems. There are two types of deprecation, though - one is deprecating specific packages or methods or classes. Another is deprecating fundamental patterns and ways of working. Am I supposed to use ZCML for this or Python? Well, a while ago, it was ZCML, now it's python, and then maybe it'll be something that looks completely different. Now I'm told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content. Maybe soon the default may be a filesystem. Mmm... FWIW, I personally doubt that we would make the filesystem choice for the vast bulk of ZC's past and future engagements. I would also be surprised if we did not continue to use the ZODB as our primary persistence tool (among others, already including the file system and RDBMSs) in the future. I just wonder how someone who isn't already "in the know" and on this list would hope to keep up with all these twists and turns. That is - I wonder how those who have deployed on Zope 3 deal with them. We run regular automated tests. We ideally make sure that the changes are ones we agree with or ones we can opt out of. Gary ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Re: Who would use this crazy thing called Zope 3?
Martin Aspeli wrote: Now I'm told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content. Maybe soon the default may be a filesystem. Mmm... Whatever we do with the filesystem, it's not going to be as ambitious as Ape. Ape makes the filesystem appear as an object database, but that turns out to be more complexity than most people want. I think it'll be more similar to CMF DirectoryViews. Scripts and templates on the filesystem that want to read/write data will probably use an object database or RDBMS. Shane ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Re: Who would use this crazy thing called Zope 3?
On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: I'm told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content. Maybe soon the default may be a filesystem. Mmm... My feelings are that there should be a "classic" Zope 3 release which is exactly what exists now (it should make the assumption that ZODB is present and the root object of the publication lives there, present a management interface, etc.) and there should be a "light" Zope 3 release which is really just "BoboNG" which makes no assumptions about the publication object. Jim did some work on this last year. IMO, this would be Zope 3 without anything that currently lives in zope.app. The reason for the "light" version would be to make it easier for people who don't necessarily buy in to the ZODB or schema-based content or through the web management, etc. to start using Zope gradually without needing to bite all of it off at once. I think the "filesystem-traverser" Shane is referring to might be packaged as a plugin to one of these versions or the other. It would just be a package which defines the publication root object as a filesystem traverser. Making it optional and shipping it separately from Zope 3 would decouple things appropriately, IMO. - C ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Re: Who would use this crazy thing called Zope 3?
On 2/11/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are two types of deprecation, though - one is deprecating specific > packages or methods or classes. Another is deprecating fundamental > patterns and ways of working. Am I supposed to use ZCML for this or > Python? Well, a while ago, it was ZCML, now it's python, and then maybe > it'll be something that looks completely different. Eh, no, that's not a fundamental pattern. Declaring an object to be an adapter in ZCML or in Python are not two different ways of working. ZCML is hardly gonna go away completely, and neither is python. ;-) > Now I'm told that the > ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content. Maybe soon the default may be > a filesystem. Mmm... Mmm, sure. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
