> So my plea is:  If we're going to have more than one way to do it,
> let's please not invent lots of special magical things that
> "just work" in one mode of development and have to be laboriously
> rewritten in the other mode of development. It makes the border
> between modes of working too hard to cross and makes Zope 2 feel
> rather un-agile at times.
Would it be possible to define a contract for a "way to do it": e.g. we
always have the tree available; we have annotations on objects; we have
access to core system and utilities.

Then the core could be provided w/o zodb; the zodb would be a compliant
persistence utility, and would interact w/ other objects via their
"persistence interface" or whatever, so that if these other objects
followed their own "way of doing things" they would plug together

Excuse me if I'm merely restating the proposal that we are talking
about. In my mind "way of doing things" is still too fuzzy, but perhaps
it can be made tighter (or someone else understands it better).

But in particular, wrt to Shane's original proposal, the "web root"
would be another compliant persistence utility. A RDBMS store would be
another type.

So their wouldn't be "one root to rule them all", but at any point in
the tree a subtree could be provided by a different persistence utility.

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

Reply via email to