--On 22. April 2008 17:14:49 -0600 Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kent Tenney wrote:
From Kevin's blog

ion-deployment-etc-of-python-projects/ (http://tinyurl.com/68sz6u)

"The idea is to use zc.buildout's machinery, not reinvent it."

I agree, it sounds like Kevin wants to take the best parts of zc.buildout
and make something more complete.  Assuming Paver matures, why not switch
Zope to use Paver when it's ready?

You don't have to jump on any train just because it passes by.
Competition is a good thing and having several alternatives for a particular
problem is not bad by design. The basic problem within the Python community is the inflation of alternatives - I would call it also unnecessary inflation of alternatives). Unnecessary alternatives means: bad designed, bad implemented. Some examples: every week new tiny Python ORMs pop up (we have strong implementations like SQLALchemy, Storm, SQLObject), we have an inflation of zc.buildout recipes doing nearly the same (svn checkouts, executing command line commands).


Attachment: pgpmpV4ntJezN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to