Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I'm told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content.  Maybe
>> soon the default may be a filesystem. Mmm...
> My feelings are that there should be a "classic" Zope 3 release which 
> is exactly what exists now (it should make the assumption that ZODB  is
> present and the root object of the publication lives there,  present a
> management interface, etc.) and there should be a "light"  Zope 3
> release which is really just "BoboNG" which makes no  assumptions about
> the publication object.  Jim did some work on this  last year.  IMO,
> this would be Zope 3 without anything that currently  lives in
> The reason for the "light" version would be to make it easier for 
> people who don't necessarily buy in to the ZODB or schema-based  content
> or through the web management, etc. to start using Zope  gradually
> without needing to bite all of it off at once.


In fact, I would go as far as calling the light version "Zope 3". If you
want more (the ZODB, etc.) then you just need to install those extension
packages to Zope 3. As said in a different post to the list, I think the
use of eggs would make this a lot easier and could help justifying the
additional step you need to take go get a "classic" Zope 3 installation.

I'm not entirely convinced that the line we'd have to draw between
"classic" and "light" Zope is exactly at the border now. also contains non-ZODB specific things that "Zope 3" should
still ship with. Which again shows how stupid the zope vs
distinction is.

Death to!

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to