>>> exec "$PYTHON" "$ZDCTL" -C "$CONFIG_FILE" "$@"
>> I wish we could just bless buildout as "the way" to set up Zope 2.12,
>> then mkzopeinstance becomes moot.
> Not everybody agrees with that. But nevertheless, both approaches can
> learn from each other and become more similar.
Are you one of the people who doesn't agree? If so, what's your problem
with buildout? Hopefully we can sort that rather than having to maintain
two ways of doing things...
> 1.) mkzopeinstance now also uses entry points for runzope and zopectl.
> zopectl did have some code in the "__name__ == '__main__'" section, so I
> added a small 'run' wrapper for 'main':
Interesting. I never noticed that... Hopefully that change will make it
into Zope 2.12 final?
> 2.) The runzope and zopectl scripts created by mkzopeinstance are now
> basically small wrappers that pass the config file location to the entry
> point scripts.
Cool. If only the zope2 egg could expose these now, it would make the
buildout.cfg simpler... just the matter of passing in the config. I
wonder if anyone can think of a nicer way of doing that?
> 3.) And the zopectl script still sets the PYTHON interpreter. You
> specify it in zope.conf. I can't see a reason why someone would want to
> run zopectl with a different interpreter than the Zope instance.
Indeed. I'd suggest that if the python used to run zopectl is different
to the one specified in runzope, there will be problems. My guess is
that these are just symptoms of how runzope and zopectl used to be
> we can make it unnecessary to specify the interpreter.
When runzope and zopectl are built by buildout, this is already the
case... One python is used for both...
> 4.) How do you create zopeservice.py for Windows?
What's Windows? Seriously though, I haven't needed to run Zope 2.12 on
Windows, so I don't know...
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -