I have similar feelings as Matthias.

My thoughts:

  - Have a canonical namespace which denotes quality, proven,
and widely used packages.  Packages should never be in this
namespace unless the package can meet some quality level.
The namespace could be, zodb.

  - We could use something similar to the Apache incubation process.

  - We should come up with a list of criteria which we want this
complete package to achieve. I believe everyone feels that the
Standalone ZODB package is simply not enough to build a sophisticated
Real World application.  So we need to outline  what are the min. features
of such an aggregation.

This is a huge project.  So I completely understand the hesitation to
invest into something so daunting.  Maybe the beginning is to blog and
talk about the packages that DO work and get confirmation that the
authors are still interested in maintaining these packages.

> I'm sure the ZODB documentation project
> (http://zodbdocs.blogspot.com/) would gladly accept a contribution
> towards clarifying what current best practice is for catalogs in ZODB.

Yes.  If you are interested in sharing what packages you are using in
production.  Let me know.  I will give you access and you can post blog
entries on zodbdocs.  No one has taken me up on the offer.  I would really
like to see others contribute with their ZODB experiences.

Preferably talking about direct experiences with packaging instead of talking
about the LACK of packaging on the blog would be good ;)

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to