Chris Withers <chris <at>> writes:

> > You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has?
> Every single Plone project I've ever worked on has required more 
> maintenance than will ever see 

I have no way of judging whether that's a valid comparison, without knowing how
much maintenance will see and what degree of complexity your Plone
projects were.
> > So the problem was either Plone itself, or it was the way in which Plone was
> > implemented and customised.
> No, the problem was using a set of complex components to solve a problem 
> that is never going to see the maintenance necessary to make a complex 
> set of components a viable solution doesn't see much continuous maintenance. There is some work going on
to improve (not maintain) some of the components we've built to make running the
site easier, which will continue and would be available to as well. I
don't see how the use case is much different from the one,
and runs very well in Plone, and you're going to have a hard time
convincing me that Plone is not an appropriate technology for and
similar sites.

> >> I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of 
> >> Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases...
> > 
> > So it's better to build a custom CMS from scratch just for
> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't 
> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that 
> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...

What complexity would you get rid of exactly?


Zope-web maillist  -

Reply via email to