Gary Poster wrote:

On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:

Roger Ineichen wrote:

That's a very interesting idea.

It is a very neat idea. You asked for gut reactions, and I must admit that I regard the ZODB as more attractive and more central to the Zope story than some, so my gut reaction is lukewarm.

I agree that ZODB is very central, but I think there are a lot of people who would use Zope if they didn't have to simultaneously commit to ZODB right away.

I can imagine sites like the ones you described, though, and have even made one or two that might have used this...though not at work.

The big thing for me is the migration story. First, I (as a web designer, novice or experienced) build a web site for my company or I conceive of some fun new idea like I make a little site in the web root, using Zope technology, with only one dead but familiar chicken: filename extensions. If the site I build turns out to be reusable, I graduate into application development, and the transition is smooth since I'm already using Zope technology. I praise the developers of Zope for the nice learning curve. :-)

Come to think of it, maybe it would also be an interesting approach to a "baked web site" delivery system.

Maybe. I've come to think of baking as a pretty hard problem, though. It's like caching (which is often a hard problem) without invalidation.

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to