On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:40:51AM -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote:
| An idea just occurred to me.  I think others have probably had similar 
| ideas, but didn't express it in the right place or time.
[..]

| Any thoughts or gut reactions?

My first response was "cool".

My second response was: that's apache;  zope isn't supposed to compete
with or replace apache.

After reading the other responses, I can definitely see real value in
zope supporting applications that don't need an object store.  I did
create an app that (apart from being TTW because I didn't know better
at the time) is entirely RDB-based, another app that uses the zodb for
configuration only and is otherwise entirely backed by LDAP, and I
have created or thought of some applications that don't need any
persistence at all (beyond configuration data, which could be zconfig
or zcml).  This definitely has a lot of value.

So I'm in generally in favor and would like to see an experiment on a
branch like Stephan suggested.  My only concern is that it could grow too big
and try to become an apache replacement.

-D

-- 
\begin{humor}
Disclaimer:
If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that:
   1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
   2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
        such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends
        itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW.
   3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
   4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
        be included on your message
\end{humor}
 
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/            jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to