OK, sorry about raising an issue that I was not around to comment on. First, there seems to be a good deal of confusion on what FileSystemSite or the DirectoryView portions of CMF are. They are simply a way to have Zope2 programmatic content stored directly on the filesystem, including dtml, page templates, python scripts and zsql methods, among others.
FileSystemSite does not allow "filesystem access" in the usual sense, access is read-only; objects cannot be created on the filesystem through ZMI. Arbitrary filetypes cannot be easily stored on the filesystem at all (In fact I have no interest in that, I can always store such files in Apache-space.) This, or the CMF version, or something like it should be included because it is a large step up from pure TTW development in that it makes using conventional OS-level tools easier, including revision control systems and editors. It also gets the job done without all the effort of zope2 python based products. While products are important, and indeed, at this point the zope3 way, they don't scale down very well; and for one-off, will never meet the external world, systems; they represent a lot of wasted motion. FilesSystemSite and DirectoryView represent a "middle way" between pure TTW and pure file-system development. This is an idea that has come up at least three times, Ape was partially inspired by it, the CMF suite has such components, and it was thought to be worthwhile to pull out of CMF. CMF is a lot of overhead to pull in just to get DirectoryView, and exactly what to install to get DirectoryView and as little else as possible installed is not documented. In fact, neither is very well documented. I don't care whether DirectoryView, or FileSystemSite, or yet another implementation is blessed. However, the idea of permitting all programmatic content to be stored directly on the filesystem has merit and has been developed multiple times. It is an option that belongs in zope2 core. Note: if one is chosen, I will write a draft of a chapter for the "Zope Book" for the blessed implementation. jim penny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/26/2006 09:56:01 AM: > Tino Wildenhain wrote: > > > Maybe its just me but I personally dont like direct filesystem > > access in the core - if someone wants it, (s)he can pick from > > the 3rd party products - maybe there can be a list of recommended > > (active maintained) products? Direct access products should also > > carry some easily understandable warnings. > > I can understand that point of view for products that allow writing to > the filesystem, but, conceptually, what's the difference between > read-only "filesystem access" and a standard filesystem product? > > None, I think, but then I may have misunderstood the purpose of > FileSystemSite, and friends. > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org > 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 ) > _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org 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 )