Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007, at 01:58, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Eggs contain Python packages. How you deploy the Python packages is your choice. If you like copying or symlinking, fine. And, heck, you can still symlink your products to Products. Nobody's getting rid of Products. But please-oh-please let us start developing new things in regular packages so that we can

a) make use of the tools provided to us by the greater Python community

b) ease other Python programmers into Zope (no more weird Products, no more "Zope stinks", no more "Zope is its own universe"). Some of us *like* reaching out.

c) make things easier for *ourselves* (being able to test a simple Python package outside the context of a full-blown Zope instance is a tremendous win).

I won't grace the uncalled-for sarcasm with an answer.

Jens, I didn't mean to be sarcastic. Sorry if that came across wrong.

You misunderstand my point. I simply don't want the existing dead-simple way of creating quick sandboxes be replaced by some mechanism where I need to start writing configuration files or learn some wondrous framework, just because it's been decreed the technology du jour.

I understand and believe it or not, I also sympathize :). The good news is that it's still possible. After all, the initial argument of this thread wasn't that we wanted to eggify or buildoutify CMF, but that we wanted to introduce standard Python packages as possible dependencies. Such packages only have to be on the PYTHONPATH, e.g. put into INSTANCE/lib/python. How they end up there is up to you. As said, symlinking, copying, etc. still works.

-- -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Next Zope 3 training at Camp5:

Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to