I hate to jump into this thread .... but I'll make a few comments.

On Jan 25, 2007, at 5:13 PM, whit wrote:

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a plone buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for buildout. I hope they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further development to benefit the whole Zope 2 community.

I believe this is just a matter of contrib agreements being sorted out (Hanno?). I guess I need to get mine sorted out as well if I'm going to keep working on this when it moves... :-/

I also see that workingenv was abandoned. That's very good to hear because buildout has a lot of machinery for installing eggs already, it would just've been duplicated with workingenv...

is there some advantage to the way that buildout handles eggs over workingenv. as I understand it, workingenv *only* handles python setup and does that well and transparently.

Right, buildout handles a lot more. For example, we use buildout to build C libraries and to generate various sorts of application artifacts like configuration files, custom startup scripts, and so on, in addition to Python scripts.

The point is that buildout *already* handles eggs. There's really no point for having an extra layer on top of buildout. The zc.recipe.egg recipe can install any egg (as a development one or not) in an automated fashion, which is exactly what you'd want from a buildout.

well that's awesome that buildout has duplicated this effort....

I'm not sure what effort you think buildout is duplicating. WRT eggs, buildout, like workinenv/easy_install builds on setuptools. setuptools does the heavy lifting with regard to building eggs. Buildout does have some nice features for building eggs with extensions that need custom setup options.

Like workenv, buildout supports installing eggs in development environments rather than the system Python. workingenv bends easy_install to it's will, while buildout goes below easy_install. This allows buildout to have more control, which was important to me. Buildout gives me greater control over egg revisions used and the way that scripts get generated. (Maybe workingenv would give me more control than I think it does -- I haven't looked at it in a while.)

the "source bin/activate" dance is the only thing I see being a detriment here(and with the latest workingenv, your shell prompt lets
you know you are in an env).

Not everybody likes the activate dance. With buildout, you don't need it. The recipes make sure that the scripts that get installed into the buildout's 'bin' directory have the right PYTHONPATH set and have access to the eggs you requested for the buildout.
is there really a difference between zopectl and source bin/ activate? I guess the main difference here is where PYTHONPATH gets set and how people work with it. for example, if you just start python and want to play with code.... sounds like with zc.buildout you are out of luck for things installed in the buildout.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'll note that buildout lets you easily create "interpreter" scripts. When run without arguments, you get a Python prompt. When run with a script name and arguments, then they will run the script with the arguments. You define an interpreter by specifying on or more eggs and those eggs and their dependencies (and additional paths you can optionally set) will be included in the interpreter's path. This makes playing with code pretty easy.

In our situation, we might have multiple versions of software running on different processes started in different workingenv (often not even using zope). being able to contextualize the python path is a useful development tool; this is understandable for buildout to avoid(as a deployment tool), but if we are considering using buildout as a prescribed way for people to manage their development environments, it seems lacking.

I don't know what you mean by "contextualize the python path". An important feature of buildout (actualy the egg recipe) is that it lets you create scripts with exactly the eggs they need. This was a core motivation of buildout. And, as I have mentioned above, you can also create interpreter scripts for experimentation and running other scripts. Perhaps these interpreter scripts are like your workingenvs.

Workingenv made it more complex than it needed to be (or buildout did, depending on which perspective you look at it from). I believe Hanno wanted to rescue the recipe in case others found it useful, but it's not used for now.

what about if I'm already using workingenv... and want to use zope or plone in my workingenv?

I see no problem with that. zc.buildout is one way of deploying Python software like Zope. As long as you've got eggs, you could install them manually into your workingenv just fine. buildout just does it an automated fashion (and, of course, it can do more than just installing eggs).

which I could automate in my env (workingenv takes recipes also). for that matter, eggs automate the installation of eggs...

Actually, they don't. They allow automation and workingenv and buildout provide automation, both building on setuptools.

I'm not sure what it would take to make buildout just automate install eggs into my env...

I'm not clear on what the advantage would be. I'm probably missing some use cases. I think they are both valid approaches to the problem.

but not putting them in special directories would be a start.

Um, both workingenv and buildout install eggs into specific/special directories. You can configure buildout to install eggs wherever you want, including into the directory structure that workingenv uses.

Note that buildout separates regular and develop eggs to allow regular eggs to be shared across projects. This can be a big win for performance, space and allowing buildouts to be created offline.

currently, I don't see an easy way to use buildouts inside a workingenv, whereas the rest of python world works great. I will have alot of trouble explaining to my developer who already think zope smells that they have to change the way they work to use zc.buildout recipes.

for example, I can't use the deliverance or lxml buildout with an existing topp.deploy workingenv because of buildout's arbitrary egg handling scheme. If zc.buildout didn't try to do so much, the python would be installed transparently like everything else I easy_install.

I'm not too fond of zc.buildout's directory scheme eiher. In particular, I wish that it would use 'lib/python' instead of 'eggs' and 'src' instead of 'develop-eggs'. I don't know enough zc.buildout details to be able to say whether that can be chagned by remimplementing the egg installation recipe. I would sure hope it is.

You can set the eggs directory to anything you want:

eggs-directory = lib/python
develop-eggs-directory = lib/python

If you want, you could put this in ~/.buildout/default.cfg and buildout will work this way for all of your buildouts.

this may be all that is required to make the two play well together (or have buildout respect an existing workingenv when doing it's local install of eggs). Maybe it's just a matter of zc.buildout seeing workingenv is in effect and not composing special pythonpaths.

harmony is my interest here. workingenv is pretty low-level and works hard to work well with python. there is no reason that zc.buildout should have a problem with that.. it just needs to do less when appropriate.

If people really see value in having buildout and workingenv work together, perhaps Ian and I could explore this a bit at PyCon next month.

try to justify why a zope hammer is better and why zope folk keep building new hammers that don't play nice with everyone else's hammer loses us cred.

You seem to be implying that workingenv is somehow a standard tool and that buildout is a zope-specific tool that needlessly duplicates a standard tool. zc.buildout is in no way zope specific. Can a Zope developer not develop a tool without it being stamped as "zope specific"? zc.buildout and workingenv started life at about the same time. They are both valid and useful tools with somewhat different goals and approaches. They both deserve consideration.


Jim Fulton                      mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]                Python 
CTO                             (540) 361-1714                  
Zope Corporation        http://www.zope.com             http://www.zope.org

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  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