On 3/4/09 9:47 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Paul
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
>> On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [...]
>> Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
>> users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
>> Everybody wins.
>> Hopefully such solutions will be the norm in the future.
>>> That particular discussion is over, though, and I have no
>> interest in
>>> having it again.
> I hope not! I don't like to have any code in an application which
> I don't use.
> But right now I don't see a better solution for the chicken
> and egg problem we have with z3c.pt and chameleon support
> in our base packages. In older days we used monkey patches
> for that problem, but that's no solution anymore.

I agree, and I think this case is a good exemplar for the challenge.

Chameleon wanted to make a good templating engine that was independent 
of megaframeworks.  For that, it needed/wanted a configuration language 
that met your statement "I don't like to have any code...I don't use".

But legacy in one of the projects changed this from a self-contained, 1x 
amount of work into a cobweb of bigger issues, control in the hands of 
others, and 10x the work.  Human nature says that's demoralizing.

Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a 
point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing 
something small.


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