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
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 del.icio.us. 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