-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On 22. Dezember 2006 15:55:48 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has 2 major disadvantages:
> - It is ours. :) We are bearing the burden of maintaining it.
> This is offset by the fact that it hasn't required much maintenance.
..which is actually a sign of "it-just-works".
> - It is largely undocumented. This makes it much harder to use than it
> needs to be. It also makes it under appreciated. I made a start at
> fixing this yesterday:
> It isn't very hard to use, so documenting it isn't really all that hard.
...which is almost True for a lot of parts of the Zope 2 core :-)
> I wonder if we should be using some other daemon manager. Arguably,
> no reason for the Zope project to maintain one if something is available
> that does what we need.
I think (meanwhile) that this is not enough to justify the replacement of a
component. Replacing a Zope 2 component always caused some pain. So as a
rule for replacing something in the Zope 2 core we consider those rules:
- the replacement solves existing functional problems
- it adds major functional benefits
- no issues with backward compatibility, well tested etc.
For the Zope 2 core we must be very careful about changing stuff. Stability
and backward compatibility are much, much more important for the end-user
than satisfying our replace-all-with-something-better drive :-)
Don't get me wrong but we've done some minor mistakes with replacing stuff
in the past and because of that I became a bit conservative about changing
things. Of course I am only speaking for the Zope 2 core.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -