--On 22. April 2008 17:14:49 -0600 Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kent Tenney wrote:From Kevin's bloghttp://www.blueskyonmars.com/2008/04/22/paver-and-the-building-distribut 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 particularproblem 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).
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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 )