--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:08:23 -0400 "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Tres Seaver writes: > Actually, the restricted case is the one which has the real win; the > "free-floating" library is pretty, but not semanticaally needed. An > added argument: a ZPT with its own private library becomes, in effect, > a Zope3 view component; adopting such beasts will ease migration to > Zope3.

And it keeps all the pieces easy to locate! +1

+1


There are a few ways to approach serialization of a view that contains
both a template and Python code:

- Serialize it as a directory containing two files.

IMHO, this is the obvious and probably best choice. It's well in line with a sentiment
in the the Linux file system world that the way to handle multi-piece files is to treat them
as directories rather than introduce another layer of special mechanisms. The file sytem
itself can them optimize their storage as part of a general small file optimization strategy.
I don't think the objection to having to pack a ZPT and it's script(s) in a separate ZODB
folder applies anywhere near as well to file system storage.


Dan Pierson


_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to