Hi Chris

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
> On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
>> Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
>> Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
> We don't depend on zope.security and there is no C in the BFG security code
> itself.
>> On a side note I have got a big chunk of zope3 running on gae (had to
>> gut zope.security and zope.proxy) and plan on revisiting the whole
>> effort looking at bfg, but I would need to revert
>> to zpt because cheetah
> Chameleon, I think you mean.

Oops yeah! ;)

>> is dependant on lxml and its no 'c' for me,
>> any suggestions or ideas
>> on the effort involved.  (I have zpt running with similiar
>> functionality  to zope.app.pagetemplate level rather thatn
>> zope.pagetemplate) with full macro lookups etc....
> Malthe has expressed interest in removing the lxml dependency from
> Chameleon, but I think he needs funding.  Others have also expressed an
> interest in this and we'd probably kick in to a pool of funds towards this
> if you ever get to a point where it became something you wanted to do.  I
> really don't know how much effort is involved, but for the record, Chameleon
> only depends relatively shallowly on lxml (mostly for xpath expressions),
> and removing lxml will make no difference in rendering speed.

ok but I assume it's not too much of a problem to swap out chameleon
altogther  in the meantime and go back to zpt (unfortunately I don't
have money for this project ;-(

Again thanks for the info.

My plan to is to rollout a small site I am building in zope3 on gae,
and then go back
and do a major refactor on what I have learnt, and look at bfg as the
model going forward.


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