Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Chad Whitacre wrote:
> ...
>> Now, Jim: it looks like Zope still uses a Unix-y userland for
>> INSTANCE_HOME, yes?
>
> Yes, but I hate it. At Zope Corporation, We're moving away from it
> for a number of reasons.
I actually like it a lot, still, and I haven't heard compelling
arguments, for me, for other things...
The big plus point for me is that everything needed for one deployment
is in one folder.
I agree with Jim that in large-scale deployments, as ZC does, there may
not be the need to worry about this, but I think python is probably in
use in a lot more projects where there's more than one project per
machine, and you want to be able to totally isolate them from each other.
INSTANCE_HOME in Zope 2 felt like the right balance for me...
> For development, it adds structure that isn't needed. A Zope
> instance really only needs a few files. Trying to minic some
> notional unix layout just adds pointless structure.
It's kindof self documenting though:
/etc -> config
/bin -> scripts
/var -> data
/log -> logs
I like that consistency, regardless of its origins...
> The traditional complex Zope instance file layout lead to the use of
> an instance "skeleton" to deal with all of the files, which led, in
> turn, to a copy and hack style of configuration customization that is
> inflexible and encourages cruft.
I think the Zope 3 skeletons went the wrong way. The skeletons work, but
where they only contain config that's specific to that instance. Zope
3's notions of putting python scripts (and non-trivial ones at that!)
and the like into the instance home made me shudder...
> For production deployments, we (Zope Corporation) install files into
> the *real* Unix tree where site administrators want them.
Not everyone runs on unix. Having a standard layout that fits into a
folder works cross platform to a large extent.
> Keeping the number of files used by an application minimal makes it
> easier deal with the different needs of development and deployment
> and makes it easier, at least for me, to deal with different
> configurations.
Yep.
> I'll note that I find lib/python especially silly.
Agreed. lib would be fine, mindyou, so would Products ;-)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
