On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:39:01 -0000, Sidnei da Silva
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:30:29PM -0000, Martin Aspeli wrote:
| So, I'm serving static content like Apache, I'm interpreting file types
| like Apache and I'm using .htaccess files like Apache. But I'm using
| Why am I not just using Apache?
| Would I be learning this beast that is Zope?
Because you want to use adapters? :)
For what, though? You want to build utilities etc, perhaps, but I would've
thought that the usefulness of that idiom only applies when it's used
across the board, including on your content objects. I suppose the
Zope/Python object representation may have certain interfaces that you can
use; perhaps that's enough. But how do you apply a marker interfaces, say,
to something on the filesystem?
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand this well enough to give a +1 or a
-1 or that it's really my place to do so. I just wonder that if the idea
is that people should use this as a first step because the ZODB is too
complex, well, then Zope itself is much more complex and they'd use Apache
Now, as for making it possible to provide views or mount points (whether
top level or not) to filesystem data and have a sensible way of mapping
that data into the Zope world with proxy pyhon objects and interfaces, I
can see the point very much.
One idea I want to try some time is making Zope 3 WSGI application
work on Apache or IIS.
Zope3-dev mailing list